Sitting of 9 November 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS](SUSPENSION)
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Messages [3rd November and 8th November] as relates to the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] be now considered.
  Resolved,
  That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL, BRITISH
  RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL, LONDON DOCKLANDS
  RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL, ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL, BIRMINGHAM CITY
  COUNCIL BILL AND SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Messages [3rd November and 7th November] as relates to the London Regional Transport Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill, the St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill, the Birmingham City Council Bill and the Southern Water Authority Bill be now considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill, the St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill, the Birmingham City Council Bill and the Southern Water Authority Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he now has as to the percentage of adults in Scotland who have registered for the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Preliminary indications from community charges registration officers are that the number of people included on the community charges registers, which came into force on 1 October, amount on average to more than 99 per cent. of the adults resident in their areas according to the Registrar General's population figures.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures give the lie to the campaign organised by some Labour Members that the Scottish people should refuse to register? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the figures confirm the good sense of the Scottish people in obeying the law and ignoring the illegal "Stop it" campaign supported by Labour Members?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A very bad example has been set by the Labour party in the matter of law breaking. The Scottish people, however, believe in obeying the law, and attempts by the Labour party to frustrate the compilation of the register have clearly failed.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister accept that tomorrow will see one of the first main tests of public opinion on the poll tax in Scotland and that the votes cast in Glasgow, Govan tomorrow will show support for the SNP non-payment campaign and very little support for the Conservative party and the community charge?
    Mr. Lang: I do not accept the hon. Lady's attitude and I await with interest the evidence of the 100,000-strong army of non-payers and law breakers that she intends to recruit to the SNP.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the people of Scotland on rejecting the blandishments to criminal activity by members of the Labour party and the Scottish National party, with the honourable exception of the shadow Secretary of State? Will my hon. Friend remind the Scottish people that, on average, the community charge will be only £5 per week per head, that if they are sensible enough to vote Tory, for example, in Perth and Kinross, it will be only £4 per week, but that if they are stupid enough to vote Labour it may be anything up to double that amount?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the figures published last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I emphasise that those figures are not speculative, but are founded in fact. They reflect the known facts relating to

    289
    the increase in inflation, which can affect the ceiling on business rates and the distribution and amounts of revenue support grant. As a result, any council spending more than the figure given by my right hon. and learned Friend will be doing so because it is increasing its spending.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister is simply peddling myths and doing so rather pathetically. Does he accept that at no time has the Labour party advocated non-registration? Our aim has been to build a coalition against the poll tax and we have succeeded remarkably. If the Minister wishes to shrug that off, how does he account for the fact that the poll tax is almost universally unpopular and in vast areas of Scotland his party is now an electoral joke?
    Mr. Lang: It is plain that the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the facts. Not only do recent opinion polls show a rise in support for the community charge, but in the past five months there has been a dramatic fall from 31 to 8 per cent. in the number of people intending to follow the blandishments of Labour Members of Parliament not to pay the community charge.

    Health Boards (Savings)
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether savings have been made by the health boards in Scotland as a result of putting their ancillary services out to competitive tender.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Yes. In December 1987 I asked health boards to re-examine the potential for competitive tendering. The contracts awarded by the beginning of November as a result will save more than £14·5 million in the following three years, and that will be used for reinvestment in direct patient care.
    Mr. Riddick: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the main opposition to competitive tendering has come from the Scottish TUC, the trade unions and the Scottish Labour party? While the Labour party argues in public that more money should be put into the Health Service, is it not true that in reality it is far more interested in maintaining its trade union monopoly empire, even at the expense of patient care? Does that not demonstrate the double standards of the TUC and the Scottish Labour party?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all but one respect—the policy of competitive tendering was opposed by all Opposition parties and by all Socialists in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to point out that in doing so they have opposed improvements in patient care. The £14·5 million that has been saved is equivalent to 2,400 heart bypass operations, 4,800 hip replacement operations, the salaries of 700 extra nurses and 1,300 renal dialysis machines. I must tell Opposition Members who represent constituencies in the Edinburgh area that it is also equivalent to the entire cost of the recently completed phase 2 of the Western general hospital in Edinburgh, which provides 144 new acute beds in an intensive therapy unit.
    Dr. Moonie: It might help if the Minister spent some of that money on providing a heart for himself. Can he give
    290
    figures for the cost to the Health Service in Scotland during the next year of redundancy payments as a result of privatisation?
    Mr. Forsyth: I know that the Glasgow Herald has suggested that the hon. Gentleman has given me too easy a time, but he will need to try a little harder than that to get accolades from that source.
    The redundancy costs will be a one-off payment over the full period of the contract. I cannot give a precise figure, but about 2,000 people will be affected by competitive tendering. The best estimate I have is about £4 million over the total period.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the evidence on competitive tendering and the way in which we are using the money to benefit patients shows clearly that we are the only party that really cares about the patients? Will he confirm the story going around that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has been consulting my hon. Friend on competitive tendering as he is considering that as a method to bolster his Front-Bench team?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to point out the use of competitive tendering in the allocation of Front-Bench positions. Indeed, even the policy of opting out appears attractive to some people on the Opposition Front Bench.
    My hon. Friend rightly said that our policy is in the interests of the patient. It has resulted in additional resources being made available for health care. It is significant that when it comes to crossing NUPE or COHSE, no Opposition Member is prepared to defend the interests of the patient.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is it not true that the Government's paper savings are, in fact, of no benefit to the patients? The Government's policy is nothing but a piece of political ideology.
    Can the Minister confirm that redundancy payments resulting from competitive tendering have been so large that the Scottish Office coffers are running low? Have not the health boards been told that in future they must pay 75 per cent. of all redundancy payments? When will the hon. Gentleman give up this rubbish about competitive tendering? When will he realise that the function of the Health Service is to look after the patients, not to put money into the pockets of his former clients and companies that have funded the Conservative party?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have already confirmed that the estimate for redundancy costs is about £4 million. That is compared with savings of £14·5 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that redundancy costs are paid from the centre. There is adequate provision in our budget to meet them. There is no question of health boards having to find the money. Indeed, the Scottish health boards have £14·5 million available as additional resources for patient care. If the hon. Gentleman had had his way, that money would not have been available to them.

    Pesticides
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement detailing the funding of research into the harmful effects of pesticides used in the Scottish agriculture industry.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland participates in programmes for the surveillance of pesticide residues in retail foods and provides interested parties with information on the environmental impact of pesticides.
    Mr. Hood: Will the Minister acknowledge that his Government have announced cuts of £31·5 million in agricultural research in the United Kingdom, £2·37 million of which will be cut from Scottish agricultural research, which will have a devastating effect on scientists, jobs and their good work on behalf of consumers? Does he agree that those cuts will cost 79 jobs—10 per cent. of such jobs? Does he also agree that the research is into the safe use of pesticides in agriculture to make food free from pesticide pollution? Will he tell the House how he can support such ridiculous cuts?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's question was about research funding for pesticides in Scotland. There have been no cuts, because there is no research funded in Scotland for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman talked about cuts in other research. We propose that additional resources for research in Scotland should come from those who benefit from it—the private sector. The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental mistake if he assumes that making those who can afford to contribute pay is making cuts.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Will the Minister please define "near market research" in terms of agricultural research and development?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not entirely certain what the hon. Lady is complaining about.
    Mrs. Michie: I am not complaining.
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Lady is not complaining about the Government's policy, I am delighted. I should have thought that she would support our policy of encouraging those who have a commercial interest and who will benefit from research carried out by the Government to make a greater contribution. She is quick to come to the House and argue for the interests of her constituents, particularly those who are involved in agriculture. She should welcome our policy, which will make more resources available to those who need help and support.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Clearly, the Minister is ill informed about the previous subject. Is he aware that the Barnes review, with its threat to near market research, is threatening institutes, such as the Moredun research institute and King's buildings in Edinburgh, is threatening to cut 1,500 jobs nationally and £30 million off the budget, although many of these institutes have already gone out and got a great deal of sponsorship and support from private industry, and is threatening to deal a mortal blow to them?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the research is worth while to the industries which will benefit from it, surely they will be prepared to make a greater contribution than at present. In asserting that the money will not be forthcoming, the hon. Gentleman is asserting that the research is not of value, and I cannot possibly agree with that.

    Industrial Rates
    Mr. Lambie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals for changing the method of calculating Scottish industrial rates.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): From 1 April next year the maximum possible increase in business rates will be indexed to the rate of inflation. The Government are, moreover, committed to moving to a common non-domestic rate poundage in all areas.
    Mr. Lambie: When will the Secretary of State be in a position to respond to the recent representations that he has received from the Chemical Industries Association and the United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association that he should use his existing powers to set centrally a formula for calculating the decapitalisation rates to be used in dealing with the contractors' principle of valuation?
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is being actively considered.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirm that, unlike the Opposition, the Government have no intention of introducing rating of agricultural land?
    Mr. Rifkind: I recollect that at the last election the Labour party proposed that agricultural land should be rated for the first time. I have not the slightest doubt that that would be devastating to the interests of Scottish agriculture or that those in the rural community would be aware of a proposal to that effect.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Secretary of State arrived at the absurd poll tax figures for next year, did he assess inflation for business rates by local government rises in costs, or by the standard rate of inflation? What account was taken of the number of people who will be in arrears? Does he agree with the Scottish Consumer Council that 50 per cent. of those who receive rebates will be in arrears three months after the tax coming into force? Did he take that into account when he arrived at the local government poll tax figures?
    Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment at the fact that we published figures based not on cuts being made by local authorities but on their existing level of expenditure. The non-domestic rate has been increased by the rate of inflation and the revenue support grant is being increased by almost double the rate of inflation. The simple fact that may cause discomfort to the hon. Gentleman and his local authority friends is that the figures that we published last Friday were based on the level of expenditure that local authorities are incurring in the current year. The non-domestic rate has been indexed to the rate of inflation and the increase in revenue support grant is substantially more than the current rate of inflation. The only explanation for local authorities choosing higher community charges is that they are going for growth in expenditure. Under the new system of local authority finance, for the first time local authorities will be accountable to their electors, all of whom will be asked to contribute to the cost of that excessive spending.

    Infant Teaching
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reconsider publishing the information collected for the Scottish Education Department's report on the under-sixes following publication of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education report on the under-fives.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that he has presided over the worst pre-school provision of all the member states of the EEC? Britain has the lowest provision, and Scotland is lower than that. Has he read the modest proposals in the EEC Childcare Network report? If so, how does he intend to respond to them? What is he hiding by refusing to publish his Department's report?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not aware of the assertions that the hon. Lady has made, but if the position is unsatisfactory it is because pre-school provision is a local authority responsibility. If the hon. Lady is arguing that the position is less than satisfactory, I should point out that under this Government the number of pupils under-fives attending some form of pre-school provision has risen by 5,000 since 1981. The majority of children aged between three and four are involved in pre-school provision. As to not publishing the Department's study, the hon. Lady will know that it was not completed. It was a research project, not a symphony, and it would not be useful if it were published in an unfinished form.
    Mr. Wray: Will the Minister explain why in 1977 a Labour Government spent more on nursery education than this Tory Government spent in 1988? According to Government figures given in answers to questions on 25 July, 29,300 pupils were receiving education in 1977, which cost £29,490,000. In 1988, with 10,000 more pupils and 89 more school departments, £300,000 less was spent on nursery education in Scotland, with £3 million less being spent in Strathclyde.
    Mr. Forsyth: It was not a Labour Government who spent the money. The responsibility for pre-school provision rests with local authorities. Through the rate support grant, the Government have made an increase in provision of 26 per cent. since 1979. Although we have given mainly Labour-controlled local authorities more money for this purpose, they have chosen to spend it on other priorities. The hon. Gentleman must take up the matter with his colleagues on Stratchclyde regional council and other Labour-controlled authorities.

    A74
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress with plans to modernise the A74.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The Government are committed to upgrading the A74 to motorway status. The A74 route corridor has been divided into three sections for feasibility study purposes and a consulting engineer has been commissioned for each. Final reports should be available fairly soon, but it will take some time to assess the consultants' findings and recommendations.
    Mr. Bellingham: As one who holidays regularly in Scotland and often uses the A74, I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Does he agree that it is surprising, when so much money has been spent on Scotland's road infrastructure, that this road has been neglected, given that it is Scotland's most important road? Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been many fatal crossover accidents on the A74? Surely it is time to have crash barriers installed down the whole length of the road.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I note my hon. Friend's comments about crash barriers. It is important for the infrastructure of the lowlands of Scotland that this development should go ahead as soon as practicable. Studies are progressing as quickly as possible, but it will be next year before preliminary conclusions can be drawn. It will not be until late 1989 that a public announcement can be made and draft orders prepared. Work on the first scheme of the project will begin as quickly as possible, and continue through the 1990s. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point about crash barriers and accidents and let him know the results.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister recall that on his recent visit to Kilmarnock he travelled along the A77, which joins the A74? Does he realise that that is the main route from Kilmarnock to the south? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost 15 miles of that four-lane route have no barrier or central reservation and that frequently there are serious accidents on those stretches? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that in the foreseeable future barriers are placed down the whole length of the A77?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's point does not spring from this question, but I shall look into it and let him have a full reply on crash barriers. We still have to make decisions on the allocations for the roads programme for next year, and I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about that.
    Mr. Jack rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this road go through Fylde?
    Mr. Jack: My question is about Scotland, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Then I call Mr. Jack.
    Mr. Jack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the A77 is not the only road improvement at which he is looking or which has been completed in Scotland, and that other projects have made a major contribution to the improved Scottish infrastructure and to improvements in the economy which seem to have been ignored by the Opposition?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: More than £100 million is spent each year on the Scottish trunk roads programme. The building of the M74, like the building of the A9, will be spread over a considerable number of years. We shall bear in mind the needs of all the other road programmes throughout Scotland.

    Motherwell Enterprise Trust
    Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Motherwell enterprise trust.
    Mr. Rifkind: During a visit to Lanarkshire on 27 and 28 September I met representatives of the Motherwell enterprise trust on a number of occasions, when there was a useful opportunity to discuss the operation of the trust and its various activities.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that his visit was welcome, but he will need to come back soon because he left a lot of unfinished business? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Development Agency has run down, almost to the point of closure, its Motherwell project office and that many issues in Lanarkshire are too big for local enterprise trusts to handle? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman checked in particular what the BSC privatisation prospectus will be able to say about the essential contribution that Ravenscraig, Dalzell and Clydesdale will make to industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation to visit his constituency again. Consideration is being given to a further phase of the Motherwell project. In addition, we have substantially increased the resources available to the Motherwell enterprise trust, from £13,000 last year to £30,000 in 1988–89. The trust has received more than £60,000 from the SDA for specific projects this year in the area of the Motherwell enterprise trust. I have no doubt that Ravenscraig and Dalzell will continue to make an important contribution to the employment and economy of Lanarkshire, and I think that that is the view of both sides of the House.

    Scottish Homes
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress with the establishment of Scottish Homes.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Under the Housing (Scotland) Act Scottish Homes will be established formally on 1 December 1988. The chairman, chief executive and eight additional members of the Scottish Homes board have now been appointed.
    Mr. Ingram: The Minister is pressing on with his intention to wind up public sector housing in Scotland, but does he think that it is democratic to transfer the control of housing stock from one housing body to another without consulting the tenants, as occurred recently in the Borders? Is it democratic to refuse direct representation for the 83,000 Scottish Special Housing Association tenants of Scottish Homes?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Tenancies in the Borders have not been transferred. What is at stake is a management agreement. The SSHA has a number of management agreements with district councils. The SSHA is perfectly entitled to have them, but it is under an obligation to ensure that a very good service is provided. All that most tenants of Scottish Homes will notice is a change of name. They will have the same rights and their rents will be fixed in the same way. Furthermore, the tenants will deal with the same people as they dealt with in the past.
    Mr. Ron Brown: As many SSHA tenants have been conned into buying their substandard homes, will the Minister agree to meet a delegation of their representatives before Scottish Homes comes into existence?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman wants me to see a delegation about, but the rights that SSHA tenants now enjoy will be maintained and will continue. Scottish Homes is designed to encourage and bring about urban regeneration by means of a much faster and more efficient process than has been used in the past.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that public sector investment in public housing in Scotland has increased by 16 per cent. under this Government, whereas it fell by 37 per cent. in real terms when the Labour party was in power? Therefore, the Opposition have no right to complain about my hon. Friend's performance.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Public sector investment has increased substantially since 1979. The recent supplementary allocation for public sector spending on public sector housing in Scotland has amounted to an increase of more than £30 million in the past year.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know who is handing out these daft supplementary questions to English Back Benchers on the Government side of the House, but will the Minister confirm that he is encouraging the SSHA to transfer the management, and in due course the ownership, of SSHA houses in various areas to private interests? Does he recall an assurance given in the House on 11 January by the Secretary of State for Scotland that no indvidual SSHA tenant would be compulsorily transferred to a high-rent, low-security tenancy in the private sector? Since it would have been unparliamentary for the Secretary of State to have lied to the House at that time, will the Minister tell us what those assurances really meant?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With regard to tenants' choice, my right hon. and learned Friend said that every commitment he has made will be adhered to and stood by. There have been voluntary disposals of tenancies by local authorities for many years, including the setting up of co-operatives. If subsequently there should be a proposal to change the ownership of Waverley housing trust, tenants will be given the statutory right to be consulted. That statutory right is to be debated later today.

    Eduation Reform
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on national testing and the national curriculum.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: There were over 1,000 responses to the consultation document on curriculum and assessment and these showed considerable support for the principles of redefining the curriculum, improving assessment and giving more and better information to
    Mr. Ewing: It is not a question of more and better information—in other words, national testing. Will the Minister explain in simple terms to very worried parents what will happen to a child if, when he is tested at seven and 11, he produces poor results? What impact will that have on that child when he goes into secondary education?

    297
    One of the main reasons, among others, for the people of Govan voting for Bob Gillespie, the Labour candidate, tomorrow is that parents in Govan are desperately worried about the serious damage that the Minister is doing to Scottish education.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member should recognise that when we talk about more information for parents, we are not talking just about introducing testing in English and mathematics at primary four and primary seven. We are talking about providing a new report card that will give information about each child's performance in every subject. It will include a statement to parents about what their children are expected to learn and the level of attainment that they have reached. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that people in Govan or anywhere else do not want to know how well their children are doing at school, he is out of touch.
    When a child is identified as having difficulty with basic literacy and numeracy, he or she should be given extra assistance. One of the things that have come out of restart is the fact that far too many children have gone right through primary and secondary education, but have come out with basic difficulties in literacy and numeracy. Not only have those difficulties not been identified, they have not been attended to.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that a recent opinion poll shows that two Scots out of three approve of the Government's educational policies? Does he agree also that those policies give parents more information and will result in better standards? Does he further agree that the same opinion poll showed that two Scots out of three want opting out to be introduced to the Scottish system? Will he fulfil the wishes of the Scottish people and introduce a Bill in the near future that will allow opting out?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that recent opinion poll, but I should add that it was carried out by the Daily Express. The Mori poll carried out in May for The Scotsman might be more to the taste of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Even then, before the Educational Institute of Scotland's campaign, which seems to have coalesced support for the Government's proposals, the Mori poll showed that some 45 per cent. of parents approve of testing in primary schools. The general secretary of the EIS has said that, by drawing attention to the desire for choice and information for parents, the Government have identified a weakness in the education system in Scotland which parents are determined to have removed.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: In what way have the Government altered their stance on the curriculum and assessment to meet the reservations of teachers and parents? Does the Minister agree that there continue to be severe reservations about the narrowing of the curriculum, ranking of pupils in schools, teaching to tests and placing undue stress on young children? Why do these fears persist in spite of the Secretary of State's statement? Who has the Secretary of State convinced? Who has the Minister convinced? They have certainly not convinced parents and teachers in Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is always very fair, and he is fair enough to point out that we have adapted our proposals on the curriculum and assessment to meet
    298
    anxieties that have been expressed about the ranking of pupils and selection. He is right to say that my right hon. and learned Friend has given a clear indication that the results of testing will not be used to rank children in class and that the information will be limited to parents and teachers. There is no question of pass and fail examinations being used to provide entry to a secondary school. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked why nobody believes that. The answer is, I think, that there are not many people in politics or in the trade union movement who share his respect for the facts and for constructive and informed debate.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the utterly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Industry (Ownership)
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the likely pattern of ownership of industry in Scotland over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: In the past nine years there has been a net increase of around 15,000 registered Scottish companies, and the number of individual shareholders in Scotland has doubled. Given the maintenance of the Government's economic policies, which have created in Scotland an environment in which enterprise can flourish, I fully expect these trends to continue.
    Mr. Darling: If Terry Butcher and I can share the same platform in defence of a Scottish company, will the Minister accept that there is a growing feeling that Scottish and Newcastle is merely one company in a line of others that is at risk of foreign takeover in Scotland? Will he accept that the Government's open-door policy to mergers will put the ownership of Scottish industry at risk, and that companies such as Scottish Electricity will be owned by people who are based on the other side of the world, perhaps, and not in Scotland? What will he do to protect Scottish industry?
    Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about a specific company. As he knows, the Director General of Fair Trading has been reviewing the matter and the Scottish Office has been involved in the consultations. The director general's report has been passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and presumably he will make an announcement in due course.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Minister say what advice his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given to Lord Young about the takeover? What estimate has the Government made of job losses in the event of Elders being successful?
    Mr. Lang: I am not in a position to disclose advice of that sort to the hon. Gentleman. The result of the Scottish Council's surveys show that there are as many jobs in manufacturing industry in Scottish-owned companies now as there were 10 years ago. The hon. Gentleman is unduly sensitive about that issue.
    Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most dramatic change in ownership in Scotland could come

    299
    about in the next five years from a large privatisation programme? Does he accept that that would be a real way in which to return power and control to the Scottish people? That is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome, especially those who represent parties which cannot decide whether they are for or against devolution of power.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The greatest single cause for the transfer of Scottish companies out of Scotland—the transfers include the famous companies of Colville, Stewart and Lloyd, Scott Lithgow, Yarrow, Kincaid, Robb Caledon, Alexanders and MacBrayne—has been nationalisation under Labour Governments. We propose to denationalise industry. As my hon. Friend says, that will enable electricity companies and bus companies, for example, to be re-established in Scotland.

    European Single Market
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to encourage the presence of business headquarters in Scotland in advance of the single European market; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: Through Locate in Scotland the Government continue successfully to encourage companies to establish themselves in Scotland. Many such companies have already set up headquarters for their manufacturing facilities in Scotland in order to serve European markets; and 1992 offers further opportunities for such developments.
    Mr. Doran: Perhaps the Minister will agree with me that although it is important to attract new industry to Scotland, it is important also to protect local and indigenous industry. Is he aware that this afternoon the Hall Russell shipyard in my constituency has been forced to bring in the receiver, thus putting at risk 450 jobs and the only remaining shipyard on the east coast of Scotland? Will he join me in encouraging the Overseas Development Administration to allow the yard sufficient draw-down facilities to ensure the completion of the St. Helena ferry, which is now under construction, and assist us in our aim to retain the yard as a viable unit under the receiver, with a view to a successful purchase in future?
    Mr. Lang: I have noted with concern and regret the decision of Hall Russell to call in a receiver this afternoon. I hope that the difficulty will prove to be transitional. The ODA will wish to be in touch with the receiver because of its interest in the St. Helena ferry. The ODA stands ready to give whatever help it can to secure the future of the yard.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent figures that show that the output of the Scottish electronics industry has expanded by one third in the past five years and that the number of skilled technical graduates employed in the industry has increased by no less than 25 per cent.? Of the foreign investors that are investing in the industry, American and Japanese companies predominate. All this is excellent news, but it highlights the danger to the Scottish economy of the Fortress Europe mentality that is now so prevalent in Brussels.
    Mr. Lang: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is right to draw attention to the success of the Scottish electronics
    300
    industry, which now provides about 45,000 jobs. Increasing numbers of companies from America, Japan and elsewhere are choosing to locate their manufacturing base in Scotland for the single European market in 1992. This gives a more accurate reflection of the reality of the Scottish economy than some of the comments that we hear from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that the serious and disturbing news about Hall Russell directly threatens the existence of an important and well-established Scottish company? Does he recognise that, whatever the difficulties faced by management, the skills of the work force are still there, the St. Helena ferry order has still to be completed, and, I hope, that further orders can be won? We would all echo the Minister's hope that the difficulties will be transitional, but will he give a guarantee that he will take positive steps to see that the yard remains in business and that the jobs are secured?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should step in with an open cheque book, I have to draw his attention to the EC directive on such matters. We stand ready to give whatever help we can to the Scottish Development Agency and, as I said earlier, we hope that this will be a transitional difficulty.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of bringing his proposals for educational reform in Scotland into line with England.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has no such proposals. Our education policy throughout the United Kingdom is geared to ensuring greater parental involvement in the management of schools, an extension of parental choice, and the pursuit of excellence. This is in the best traditions of the Scottish education system.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the evidence of strong support in Scotland for the education reforms being carried through by the Government, will my hon. Friend confirm that there already is in Scotland a majority of parents on school boards, making nonsense of Opposition claims that in some way Scotland is following England? Quite the reverse is the case.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the parental majority on school boards in Scotland, which contrasts with the position in England. It is a bit rich that the Educational Institute of Scotland complains in Scotland that our proposals for reform represent Anglicisation, while at the same time it comes to London to the other place to claim that Scotland is being unfairly treated because there is a majority of parents provided for in the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and urging the other place to reject those proposals to bring Scotland into line with England. The cry in Scotland appears to be Anglicisation, and in London that Scotland is being prevented from having a separate system. My hon. Friend points to the evidence of considerable support for our proposals, and he is right to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "What evidence?"] Those hon. Members who say, "What evidence?" should have a word with their constituents
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister agree that, through the ballot box and the Government's consultation process, the people of Scotland plainly rejected his plans for introducing school boards and provisions to opt out of local authority education? How does he justify introducing those wide-ranging changes in Scottish education—a specifically Scottish institution—without first seeking to gain the consent of the Scottish people?
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not accept that the majority in Scotland are opposed to the school boards proposals. I believe that they will be welcome. Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what the leader of Strathclyde's education committee, Convener Malcolm Green, said the other day. In response to our opting-out proposals—[Interruption.] In response to my right hon. and learned Friend's hint that he might be considering opting out, he said:
    "It is now in our interest to redouble our efforts to create a good climate so that school boards realise the real value of the service they get from the authority and what they would miss if they do not have the authority to call upon."
    Even the threat of opting out seems to produce benefits for parents in Scotland.

    Hospitals (Competitive Tendering)
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with regard to competitive tendering in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since December 1987, when I asked health boards to re-examine the potential for competitive tendering they have been awarding contracts for catering and domestic services. By the beginning of November 39 contracts had been awarded, which will produce estimated savings over the next three years of over £14·5 million. A few more contracts are still to be awarded during this current round and thereafter boards will press ahead with further tendering.
    Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that competitive tendering in the Health Service in Scotland will help further to improve it, as indeed the Government have already done by increasing the amount of money spent in the Health Service by 30 per cent. since 1979 and increasing the number of consultants by 10 per cent. and the number of qualified nurses by 30 per cent.?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most significant aspects of the competitive tendering process, which Opposition Members used to call privatisation, is that 70 per cent. of contracts and the bulk of the savings have been achieved from in-house bids by the existing work forces looking at the way in which they provide the services, removing restrictive practices and overmanning, and seeing that every penny is directed to the interests of their patients.
    Mr. Strang: Is it not an absolute scandal that more than 800 ancillary workers are being sacked by the Lothian health board to make way for private contractors? How does the Minister justify that action? Many of those women have given more than 20 years' dedicated service to the board. Is the Minister proud of the fact that they have been offered jobs inferior to those they have at present, sometimes involving less than half the number of hours that they currently work?
    Mr. Forsyth: What was an absolute scandal was the lack of leadership shown by the trade union movement towards the people who were in that position. The trade unions refused to take part in the competitive tendering process, and in some cases the health boards had to bring in management consultants to assist the in-house work forces make their bids. The trade unions abandoned them. Despite that, many of those in-house bids were successful. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those who lost their employment because of the introduction of private contractors have in the main, as a matter of priority, been offered jobs by the private firms concerned. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) pointed out, they are fully entitled to any redundancy payments that may arise from their length of service.

    Electoral Registers
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the anticipated percentage change in the numbers appearing on the electoral registers for 1988 and 1989.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No forecasts of the numbers on the electoral register are prepared. The projected population aged 17 and over shows an increase of 0·16 per cent. between 1988 and 1989.
    Mr. Barnes: Is there not a considerable danger that, due to the operation of the poll tax in Scotland, the franchise will be considerably reduced, either in the coming year or by 1990, when the tax will begin to bite? In those circumstances, clearly there is a case for repealing the legislation, otherwise a future Government may have to introduce a Re-enfranchisement of the People Act.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I cannot accept that suggestion. On the basis of the population projections, a slight increase of about 11,000, or 0·28 per cent., might have been expected. The actual numbers show a fall of about 27,500, or 0·69 per cent. As to the reasons, no definite information is available on what part of that reduction might be attributable to any one factor, such as changes in practice by electoral registration officers or the removal of dual registrations.
    Mr. Patnick: Can my hon. Friend explain what percentage of the Scottish electorate vote in local elections, and can he say what effect, if any, the community charge will have on voting patterns?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The percentage of the electorate voting in local elections is considerably below that for general elections—
    Mr. Harry Ewing: What is it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asks me what exactly is the figure. To the best of my knowledge, it is less than 50 per cent.
    This question relates directly to the electoral roll, and it is vitally important that it is kept separate from the community charge register; that it is separately prepared and maintained. That is the crux of the matter.

    Pollution
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about pollution in the North sea.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since 1 July this year my right hon. and learned Friend has received representations about pollution in the North sea from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and from two organisations and five individuals.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that there is real concern about the level of pollution in the North sea up and down the whole of Scotland's east coast? Will he undertake on behalf of the Government to take proper steps to deal with that matter? In particular, will he give an undertaking to make the necessary capital allocation to Fife regional council, so that it can institute the Levenmouth sewage disposal scheme?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Fife regional council's allocation for water and sewerage has risen steadily from £5·5 million in 1985–86 to £7·7 million in 1988–89. Sixty to 70 per cent. of that figure relates to sewerage and sewage treatment. The allocation and guideline figures for 1989–90 and for 1990–91 are close to the council's own planned expenditure figures and are about 11 per cent. above the Scottish per capita average. Nevertheless, I take seriously the hon. and learned Gentleman's general point.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister knows that our fishermen are deeply concerned about marine pollution. Does he agree that they would be encouraged if the Government were to instruct Occidental to remove completely from the sea bed what remains of the ill-fated Piper Alpha? Will the Minister kindly advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that section 5 of the Petroleum Act 1987 gives him precisely that power to impose upon Occidental a programme of complete removal?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentlman has raised a very interesting point, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to have a meeting with the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Rifkind: I meet the chairman, board and chief executive of the agency on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest. The next such meeting is due to take place early next year.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks and congratulations of the people of Scotland for the £92 million that he has won from the Treasury in addition to our budget? May I also congratulate him on increasing the budget of the Scottish Development Agency to in excess of £150 million, and making the Locate in Scotland bureau the most admired and efficient inward investment organisation in western Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Locate in Scotland has indeed been particularly successful over the past two or three years in attracting major new investment, and I am happy to pay tribute to it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that Hall Russell shipyard was privatised by his Government and given its present ownership, and that he has a responsibility towards the work force? In an earlier reply his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the Scottish Development Agency was standing by to help if necessary, but is the Secretary of State aware that a meeting held yesterday was not very helpful in the circumstances? Will he agree to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and me today to discuss the position as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have given continual and considerable support to Hall Russell over the last year. I think he knows that from his own experience. Of course, if either he or his hon. Friend wishes to put any particular points to me, or to my hon. Friend the Minister of State who deals with such matters, we shall be happy to hear them.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When he meets the chairman and other members of the Scottish Development Agency, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask them to remind the Scottish business community continually that, because of our so-called "open-door" policy, inward investment in Scotland has been of great help, bringing many jobs and great prosperity? Will he point to the danger that any kind of ring fence—any attempt to make Scotland isolationist—would have the same effect that it had in Quebec of driving jobs and investment away?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. It would not only deter investment in Scotland, but ultimately prevent Scottish companies from expanding elsewhere in the United Kingdom and overseas. The Scottish economy and that of the United Kingdom as a whole has always benefited from a willingness to employ sensible trading and investment policies of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Health Boards (Funding)
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to increase the funding allocations to health boards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: An additional £12·7 million has been allocated to the National Health Service in Scotland to cover the extra cost of this year's nurses' clinical regrading. This brings the total of additional funding to cover the cost of review body pay awards to £104·7 million. After taking account of centrally funded expenditure, the additional sum distributed to health boards amounts to £93·4 million.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister take on board the fact that in the Highland health board area, and no doubt in every other health board area in Scotland, many nurses are deeply concerned about the proposed clinical regrading and will be appealing against the grades that they have been allocated? Will he also bear in mind that in the Highland health board area specifically, many patients,

    305
    particularly on Skye and the west coast and in the more rural or isolated communities, find it very difficult to cope with the changes in patient expenses for travelling to the centre of excellence in Raigmore hospital? Does he accept that that is a financially based problem for the health board in which he should have legitimate interest, with a view to further funding?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have asked the Highland health board to reimburse patients for the costs incurred, and I regret that that was not done over a period of some months. I have asked the board to see that money is made available to any patients who were not treated fairly.
    The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that under the Government nurses' pay has risen by 44 per cent. in real terms, while the Labour Government cut it by 20 per cent. If nurses are concerned about their grading, there is an appeal process. However, I am entitled to point out that the majority of sisters in hospitals in Scotland will have a pay rise of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year. By any standard, that is a major contribution to the Health Service and a major recognition of their work. What a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to recognise that.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and board of the agency on 16 May to discuss strategic issues which might be reflected in the agency's planning and budgeting process, and other matters.
    Dr. Godman: I hope that when the Secretary of State next meets that estimable Greenockian, he will give him an assurance vis-a-vis the Hughes proposals that the SDA will continue in its present role in the Scottish economy. Is it not the case that the agency's area projects must be allowed to continue their valuable work? I remind the Minister that the Inverclyde initiative has financed and supported the Inverclyde training trust, which provides unemployed people with the skills that they will need in the enterprise zone. In that regard, the Inverclyde initiative and the Inverclyde training trust are surely an advance on Mr. Hughes and his proposals.
    Mr. Lang: The Inverclyde enterprise zone and the Inverclyde initiative represent major initiatives by the Government, administered by the Scottish Development Agency. The budget for the agency next year is £150 million. We have made it clear that we see a continuing role for the agency within the exciting prospect of the new developments that we are contemplating under the Scottish Enterprise title.

Student Support (White Paper)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about future arrangements for student support.
Two years ago I set up a review of student support to examine how the maintenance needs of students may be met. We have the most generous system of student support in the western world, yet fewer of our young people enter higher education than in other European countries.
In our 1987 election manifesto we said that the purpose of the review was to improve the overall prospects of students so that more are encouraged to enter higher education. We specifically mentioned top-up loans to supplement grants as one way of bringing in new finance to help students and to relieve pressure on their parents.
The review has now been completed. We believe that the cost of student maintenance should be shared more equitably between students, their parents and the taxpayer. The Government are therefore today publishing a White Paper which sets out our proposals to introduce a scheme of top-up loans for students. We propose that from 1990, in addition to their grant, all home students in full-time higher education, except postgraduates, will be eligible for a top-up loan averaging over £400 in a full year.
This top-up loan facility will not be means-tested. Students will be able to take up as much or as little of it as they wish. The present grant arrangements will continue, but the overall levels of grant will be frozen in cash terms at their 1990 levels. As the grant also incorporates in most cases a parental contribution, this means that over time the average parent will be paying less in real terms. From 1990, students' total resources in grant and top-up loan will continue to be reviewed annually. Any uprating to reflect cost increases will be applied only to the top-up loan facility until the top-up loan has risen to the same level as the grant and parental contribution taken together.
The top-up loans will not bear a commercial rate of interest. Under the Government's proposals, top-up loans will be offered at a real interest rate of zero. The principal to be repaid will be uprated each year in line with inflation. Repayments will not start until the April after students complete their courses. Furthermore, repayments will be deferred when a graduate's income is low for any reason.
In 1985, the Government announced their intention to remove students from the social security system. Accordingly, the Government will end the general eligibility of students for social security benefits, whether or not they qualify for top-up loans. Benefits will, however, continue to be available for students who are disabled or single parents, and for students' dependants.
The level of the top-up loan will more than compensate the great majority of students for any loss of benefit. We estimate that the average level of social security benefit which would otherwise be claimed in 1990–91 is about £150. That compares with our loan facility of £420 in that year.
I recognise, however, that there may be local circumstances in which some further help may be needed, and postgraduate and further education students will not have access to loans. I will establish, therefore, three access funds, each of £5 million, to provide support on a discretionary basis to students in special financial need.
308
The funds will be for postgraduates, other students in higher education, and students in further education. Their operation will be reviewed after three years. They will be administered by the colleges, central institutions, polytechnics and universities throughout the United Kingdom; these institutions are best placed to understand the circumstances of their students.
The terms of the top-up loan scheme we are proposing are much more favourable than those of the borrowing on which many students rely at present. And instead of students having to rely on a social security system which was never designed for them, we shall be providing appropriate discretionary arrangements to help those in real need. This is a major step forward to achieving our target of more young people going into higher education.
In the Government's view, the top-up loan scheme is best administered by the financial institutions. I am now embarking on discussions with them. I shall also consult the funding councils and representatives of the local authorities and the higher and further education institutions about the other aspects of my proposals. The Government will bring forward a short Bill to allow the new regime to be introduced from autumn 1990.
These proposals represent an important step away from the dependency culture. Students will have a financial stake in their own future, and this will encourage greater economic awareness and self-reliance. The burden of student support on taxpayers and parents will be reduced. For the first time there will be a guaranteed extra source of income for students over and above their grants and parental contributions. By introducing top-up loans, we fulfil the undertaking we gave in our manifesto at the last election.
Mr. Jack Straw: This White Paper will reduce access to higher education, increase student and parental debt and deter many students from entering higher education. It proposes that knowledge be mortgaged in the future.
Is it not to the shame of the Secretary of State that this document contains no significant proposals for dealing with the real scandal—the numbers of young people who are forced out of education at 16-plus because of financial and other pressures? Is the Secretary of State aware, that when the grant system was reasonably funded in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a significant increase in access for lower income homes? Does he not know that the grant system gave many of us our only chance of higher education, and that he is now seeking to deny to others opportunities which even many Ministers had for themselves?
Is not the principal reason why working-class participation has leveled off in the 1980s the Government's appalling record of having cut student grants by 20 per cent. in real terms, increased the burden on parents and reduced the number of home students at university between 1980 and 1986?
The Secretary of State's hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, told us last week that public expenditure constraints have been so severe that they
"must inevitably lead to the progressive degradation"
of our finest universities. I quote the hon. Gentleman's document.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is simply fraudulent to describe the loans as top-up loans? He is not topping up the grant system but pulling it down. Will he

309
confirm that he aims to replace at least half the grant and parental contribution with a loan? Will he confirm that the suggestion he made in the statement that parents will pay less in real terms is wholly misleading? If the parental contribution scale is frozen, many parents will have to pay significantly more. How does imposing such high burdens of debt on students and their parents square with the Prime Minister's injunction that people must be taught to live within their means?
Will the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that the loans will not be extended to vouchers and tuition fees, as proposed in the Jackson memorandum? Will not such loans hit women disproportionately hard? Why does the Secretary of State not have the guts to admit that, as the Jackson papers have already told us, in private the Government care nothing about increased access and that the whole policy has been driven by the Chancellor's obsession with cutting public spending? Was the Tory Reform Group not correct to say that a loan scheme would
"reduce … access to higher education … lower standards and … produce a new class of poor graduates"?
Is it not true that the Secretary of State has failed to provide better opportunities for people at 16-plus, at 18-plus and in adulthood and has failed to improve the nation's skills? Instead of moving towards the 21st century, the proposals take us back to the 19th century. The Secretary of State has betrayed the nation's future.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will want to study the proposals in detail. In reply to the point that he made about saving Government expenditure, I draw his attention to the fact that the net cost of the scheme to the Treasury will be £850 million, so there will be an increase in Government expenditure. I refer the hon. Gentleman to annex E of the White Paper, which contains a table showing the amount of money that will build up for the rest of the century.
In defending the present system, the hon. Gentleman is defending the indefensible. He is defending a system that has actually restricted access to higher education. The previous Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported, not only restricted access but cut access to higher education and cut the number of students. The hon. Gentleman is defending a system in which 35 per cent. of students do not receive the full parental contribution.
Page 15 of the White Paper deals with parental contribution. We propose that from 1990, the grant plus parental contribution should be frozen and all increases applied to the loan top-up facility. The contribution scale will be changed to ensure that parental contribution does not rise to take up the entire amount. The chart shows that. After the scheme has been introduced, parents will be paying a substantially reduced amount to support their own children in higher education.
The hon. Gentleman was dismissive about the scheme. I remind him of the comments being made in higher education circles. The Times Higher Education Supplement—no supporter of the Government—says:
"The grant or loan debate is virtually over. The case for loans now has an unstoppable momentum."
The hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, and to the papers this morning, that Ministers have benefited from the present system yet want to end the system from which they themselves have benefited. I had a means-tested award
310
which I supplemented from my own savings. I had saved money during my period of national service. I also worked during the vacations. Many of my generation would have been very glad indeed to have the facility of a top-up loan on the terms that I have announced.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the positive advantage of the system. It will provide a guaranteed extra source of income for students, over and above their present grants. It will reduce the burden on parents, who are already hard pressed. We are establishing three access funds and giving institutions the chance to tailor packages to attract more students.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the numbers staying on at 16. In three or four days' time, I shall be publishing more statistics showing that the number of children staying on at 16 has increased from 32 per cent. to 48 per cent., and that is the important point. The Government have increased the number of students in higher education by nearly 200,000 since we came to office. However, we cannot go much further by relying on the present system, and that is why we are committed to change.
The Labour party is committed to nothing in this matter. I consulted its manifesto this morning and it had nothing at all to say about students and student support. I challenge the hon. Member for Blackburn to tell us what his policy will be. He has been in charge of Labour's education policy for two years now and there is no such policy. Labour's education policy is a vacuum filled by Straw.
Mr. George Walden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the scheme, which is both sensitive and fair. Having said that, I should like to offer a little destructive criticism. At the centre of the debate is access. There are three aspects to access. The first aim is to get the mix of grants and loans right, and I think that my right hon. Friend has done that. The second and far more important aim is to improve the quality of schools, and my right hon. Friend is doing that. But there is a third aspect, to which I attach great importance, because the Government seem to want—
Hon. Members: What is the question?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has some interest in this matter. However, there is to be a debate and I would ask him now to come to his question.
Mr. Walden: What is the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the third aspect of access? It seems that the Government wish to generate a new generation of media morons by their broadcasting policy. I do not understand how that fits in with what my right hon. Friend proposes for the good of access or with what he is doing for schools. That is far more important for the promotion of social fairness than the mere mechanics of loans or grants.
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did on the student review when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I also thank him for his support for the scheme that I have announced and for the reforms that we have been introducing in the education system. On my hon. Friend's last point about media morons, I do not believe that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the reform of television will necessarily lead to falling

311
standards. There are various ways in which standards can be improved within those proposals, but that goes rather wider than the matters in my statement.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State not admit that his announcement reveals that the Thatcherite monetarist wolf has at last been admitted to the Department of Education and Science, and that the hidden agenda is now revealed? Will the Secretary of State tell us what he proposes to do about tuition fees—the other item for which students may be asked to pay in the coming months?
Is it true that students will no longer even be statistics for social security purposes and that they will not qualify—except for discretionary awards—no matter how low their income? Why did the Secretary of State say not one word about increasing access or about the fact that the proposal represents the biggest disincentive to students from poor and working families to go on to higher education that has been announced since the second world war?
Mr. Baker: I should perhaps have replied to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the question of tuition fees. I said at Question Time yesterday:
"There is a great debate on the funding of higher education, both here and overseas. There is also a growing desire among institutions for greater independence. The Government have no proposals for students in receipt of mandatory awards to contribute part of their tuition fees, but higher education institutions have a legal right to charge tuition fees, and to prevent them doing so would require legislation."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 155.]
I have made it clear that I wish to see that debate mature and develop. It has nothing to do with the White Paper that I have put before the House.
With regard to access, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must address the fact that other countries with schemes of grants and loans have very much higher records of access than we have. One of the features of our education system is that student support in the United Kingdom is uniquely high. At the 1984 prices given in the White Paper, it is £750 per student in the United Kingdom compared with £70 in West Germany, £180 in France and £30 in Japan. Yet in all those countries a higher proportion of children, especially from blue-collar families, go into higher education than is the case in this country.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed, especially by the 70 per cent. of parents who currently make a parental contribution? Will he confirm that the loan will be in addition to the grant prevailing at the time of its inception? With regard to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that children from blue-collar families will be dissuaded from taking up higher education, I do not take that view, but I should be pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's comments on that point.
Mr. Baker: I re-emphasise what I said to the hon. Member for Blackburn. We are reducing the burden on parents and taxpayers. Chart 8 on page 15 of the White Paper sets out the effect. Over time, the parental contributions will come down by nearly half. That will be a great help to many hard-pressed parents and their children.
312
I confirm that the loans will be in addition to the grants. I have already announced the increase in grant for 1989–90. There will be a further increase in 1990–91. That level will then be frozen and the loans will be on top of that.
On the very important question of access, I have already said that it is good news for this country that a higher proportion of children of 16–plus are staying on at school. That must be welcomed in all parts of the House. It is a very significant increase—up to 47 per cent. of the age band for 1988. That increase is good news and it has grown strongly in the past few years. In terms of access to higher education, socio-economic groups C2, D and E constitute 61 per cent. of the 18-year-old population in this country but supply only 21 per cent. of university entrants and 27 per cent. of polytechnic entrants. For the universities, that proportion has remained static since about 1970, so the present system, to which the Labour party is wedded, has not increased the proportion from blue-collar families. That is what we want to do and I believe that that is what we shall achieve.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I am disappointed with the White Paper. Is the Secretary of State increasing access to education or merely to debt? If he were really interested in increasing access to education, he would have addressed the problem of mature women who are trying to get back into higher education and have to use the part-time and discretionary grant award scheme. Listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that no attention whatever has been paid to that aspect. For those women, the loss of all social security benefits and entitlements will be a major—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have said, there will be a debate on this. Will the hon. Lady please ask a question?
Ms. Armstrong: What real hope can the Secretary of State offer to mature women seeking to get back into higher education?
Mr. Baker: A growing number of mature students, both male and female, are now entering higher education. Many of them do not qualify for any sort of grant or, for one reason or another, for the various benefits of the social security system. I confirm that they will be eligible to participate in the loan scheme.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is it not true that despite the generosity of our grant system, the proportion of university entrants from the unskilled, manual worker category has steadily fallen? Does not the vast bulk of the higher education world know full well that no Government could indefinitely continue with the current system?
Although my hon. Friend's scheme is most welcome, will he take it further and abolish all parental contribution and make access to loans available to that critical group of part-time university and polytechnic students who currently receive no state help?
Mr. Baker: I am sure that some people will say that the scheme goes too far and others that it does not go far enough, so I probably have it about right.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but he is not quite right. There has not been a decline in the number of students from blue-collar families. As the White Paper shows, the number has risen slightly. The survey carried

313
out for the Robbins committee shows that 3·2 per cent. of 21-year-olds whose parents were in manual occupations had entered full-time higher education by 1962. The comparable figure for 1985 was 6·9 per cent. It is a disappointing rate of progress over the years and, in some of our universities, it has not moved at all. Any increase has been mainly in polytechnics.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Does the Secretary of State accept that many caring parents will not want their children to begin life with crippling debts around their necks and, instead, will make up the contributions? Will he admit that he is merely passing contributions on to parents at a time of crippling mortgage rates and a crisis in the rented housing sector? Will not many people start life with a disadvantage because his scheme will deter those in the lowest income groups from entering higher education? When the right hon. Gentleman talks about dependency, does he mean cutting income for the poor and cutting taxes for the rich? Is that his idea of the dependency culture?
Mr. Baker: I do not believe that parents will rush in to make up the loans for their children because about one third of parents already do not take up the full parental contribution. The children of those parents will be the major beneficiaries of the loan scheme.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Is he aware that the nearest university to Europe—the university of Kent at Canterbury—is to have a seminar on this very subject next week? I shall regard it as a privilege to put the case for removing a proportion of the burden that currently rests on taxpayers—many of whom are poor people—and placing it on those of us who were privileged to enjoy university education.
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. The whole essence of the scheme is that the burden on the taxpayer and the parent will be reduced.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Having been a teacher for 27 years, may I assure the right hon. Gentleman that young people stay at school after the age of 16 because they have no other choice? There are no jobs for them. May I lodge a protest about the scheme on behalf of the poor families in Northern Ireland, which has the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom? They cannot afford to support their able children so that they can benefit from education and escape from the poverty trap. Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the special difficulties and needs of students in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Baker: The proposals that I have announced relate to the whole of the United Kingdom. Many students are prepared to make an investment in their future. When graduates leave college, in whatever part of the United Kingdom, they go into much better and higher paid jobs than do many others in our society. The average is very much higher. An analysis in the White Paper shows the return to an individual student from engaging in higher education to be about 25 per cent., which is a very high return. We are inviting students to make an investment in their future and I believe that many will do so, from whatever part of the United Kingdom they might come.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that practically every other country in the free world has a loans system? Will he consider introducing a travel loan system so that Labour education spokesmen can visit Sweden, which is by no means a Conservative country and has an excellent loans system?
Mr. Baker: The Swedish system started out in the way that I am proposing today. In the 1960s the Swedish Government decided to freeze grants, as I propose today, and to introduce top-up loans. They let that system run on to the present system where only 10 per cent. of the expenditure is on grants and 90 per cent. on loans. They went too far and are now increasing the grant element back to 30 per cent. We are proposing that grant and loans together—[Interruption.] Let me answer one point at a time—will balance out at 50:50. Student support will be provided half by loans and half by grants and parental contribution. The default rate in Sweden is about 1 per cent.
Mr. Martin Flannery: It is always interesting to hear the Secretary of State pretending that a draconian cut in education is progressive. Is it not a fact that the serried ranks behind him, due to the riches of mummy and daddy, are bound to—[Interruption.] That is the reality. Is it not a fact that our record on young people staying on in education after 16 compared with that of the great countries of the world is appalling? We are at the bottom by miles. Japan and the United States have twice—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions, please.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman talked about our position in relation to the great countries of the world. I remind him that in France the percentage of university entrants from blue collar groups rose from 23 per cent. in 1975 to 30 per cent. in 1980, although the cost of higher education in our country, where we have had no increase, is four times greater than the cost in France.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: As one who has expressed concern over the way in which the present system has failed to meet the needs of students, may I welcome the fact that the Government have grasped this nettle? Nevertheless, we are concerned about access and the effects that increasing debt may have on students. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's comments on the conversations that he will have with banks and institutions. We are bothered about the mechanics of the scheme. Can he tell the House how he expects these conversations to go and to what purpose?
Mr. Baker: The Government firmly believe that it would be better for the scheme to be operated by banks, building societies and other financial institutions than by some Government quango. I am now entering into discussions about that, but there are certain parameters to any scheme that I set out. The obligation to repay the loan should spend on the income of the graduate. That is to say that a student who has a low-paid job on graduation should have his obligation to repay the loan suspended until he reaches a certain pay level. That part of the paper is rather green and there are various suggested alternatives. That is particularly important for women graduates who get married and have no source of income.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support.
Secondly, the loan will be written off and cancelled either 25 years after it has been incurred or if the person has reached 50. Naturally there will be no recovery of loan should a graduate die. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We shall cancel it out. Thirdly, the obligation to repay the loan will not start until the April after the student has finished the course, which will probably be the previous June.
Mr. David Blunkett: Is the Secretary of State saying that longevity or the ability to string out repayment will be an advantage in not repaying the loan? Is he telling the House that taxpayers would rather subsidise financial institutions through lower interest rates than invest directly in the future of both young people and this country? Far from a culture of access, this is a culture of Visa and American Express.
Mr. Baker: It is the student who will be subsidised in that the student will not have to pay the going commercial rate for the loan, which students must pay on their overdrafts at present. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. It is part and parcel of the scheme. I should add that if there has been a deliberate attempt to string out a loan or to default, it will not be cancelled when the person reaches 50. We thought that that proposal would make the scheme slightly more attractive.
Sir Peter Hordern: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the repayment of the loans will be less at the beginning and greater towards the end? Will he confirm that the net cost of the scheme to the Government will be greater than the present one?
Mr. Baker: I have already made it clear that the scheme will involve considerable cost in the initial years. My hon. Friend asked about the length of repayment. On page 16 of the White Paper we set out a provisional scheme for how repayment builds up. We envisage that for £1,396 over three years there will be a repayment of about £300 a year for about five years. It is possible that repayment of larger debts will take longer than five years. We do not rule out the possibility of offering a discount for prompt payment, as offered under the German scheme. That is part of the discussions that we shall have with the banks.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to increase the uptake of higher education, particularly among lower income students, the staying-on rate at 16 must be markedly increased? Will he consider introducing a means-tested benefit for 16 to 19–year-olds to encourage children from lower income families to stay on at school rather than leave to supplement their own and their family's income?
Mr. Baker: That proposal was put forward by the hon. Lady's party at the general election, and in the past the Labour party has toyed with a payment at 16. First, it is expensive. Unmeans-tested, it would cost £700 million to £800 million; means-tested, it would be less. Secondly, the idea of means-testing boys and girls at school, with some receiving payment and others not, is unattractive.
The real argument against the hon. Lady's case is that we are already getting more young people staying on at 16. The rise to 48 per cent. of that age band is encouraging and is happening now.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his commitment to equality of opportunity of access for all to higher education is underlined by the fact that there is no tuition fees element in this package? Will he ensure that there is none in future? Can he confirm that the average student in higher education today borrows about £340, so we already have loans on that basis? Can we look for some considerable improvement in the student grant in 1990 when this new scheme is introduced?
Mr. Baker: We published a profile of student expenditure in the White Paper and I recall that that is at present about the average level of a student overdraft.
My hon. Friend asked about access. I remind him that many years ago, in his famous report, Robbins stated that when many parents were only just beginning to acquire the habit of contemplating higher education for such of their children, especially girls, as were capable of benefiting by it, it was probable that a system of loan would have an undesirable disincentive effect. But that if as time went on the habit became more firmly established, the arguments of justice and distribution and of the advantage of encouraging individual responsibilty might come to weigh more heavily and lead to some experiment in that direction.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that in areas of high unemployment and low income—where no holiday jobs are available and where there may be a cultural reluctance to take on loans —as a result of today's statement students who have the ability to go on to higher education will not do so? How does that encourage the development of education?
Mr. Baker: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the blue pages at the back of the White Paper, where there is an analysis of the reluctance of various socio-economic groups to take on loans. I remind the hon. Gentleman that various groups of students who do not benefit from grants will do so from the loan. At present, 50,000 students at universities or polytechnics doing mainly professional courses of one sort or another do not qualify for a grant, but they will for the loan. Students who do not qualify for awards of any sort will benefit from the loan. Students whose awards are abated and whose parents do not make up the full amount will benefit from the loan. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the three access funds that I am establishing. I am giving money to universities, polytechnics and colleges so that they can devise various access courses and packages, scholarships and bursaries of their own.
Mr. David Curry: Is not one of the principal differences between our system of higher education and that of the continent the fact that many students on the continent attend local universities, live at home and are maintained by their parents? Is that one of the reasons why there is greater access of blue collar workers on the continent? As our present system has failed in that regard, is it not good sense to change it?
Mr. Baker: I do not think that that change will be implicit in the scheme. The pattern here may change over the years, but I confirm that on the continent there is a greater pattern of students studying at their local

317
universities. Students here shop around the country, which substantially adds to the expense of our higher education system.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the major reasons for the failure to open access to unskilled children is the way in which the grant has been cut since the end of the 1960s? Will he look at the access figures for unskilled children for 1955, 1965, 1975 and 1985 and note what has happened as the value of the grant has decreased? How much in real terms will the grant be worth to each student in 2027—the last year for which we have figures in the White Paper—compared with its value in 1962, when I began my university career?
Mr. Baker: I should need some notice to give figures for the period between 1962 and 2027. I shall endeavour to extract them for the hon. Gentleman and write to him. The hon. Gentleman asked me to make various comparisons between the years and I shall do so, but I am sure that the pattern will show that access has remained static. I remind him that under the present system we spend more on student support from public funds than comparable countries. We spend more per student, more as a proportion of higher education current expenditure, more as a proportion of total current expenditure for education and more as a proportion of gross national product. We are spending much more than other countries through a combination of grants and loans, which attract more people into higher education.
Dame E. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am delighted that he has so carefully safeguarded the position of women who marry, have children and therefore do not repay the loan until they are in receipt of a reasonable income? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the participation rate of manual and blue collar workers would be infinitely higher if the Labour party had not destroyed grammar schools, from which many members of the Shadow Cabinet benefited before entering university?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend broadens the argument rather considerably. I do not want to go back into history as I prefer to talk about the future. I am sure that the various changes we are putting in hand through the Education Reform Act 1988 will substantially improve the quality of education in the future.
Several Hon Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the other business on the Order Paper. We shall be dealing with Lords amendments to two important Bills and the House need only look at the selection list to appreciate how much work we have to do. I shall allow questions to continue for another 15 minutes, but I ask hon. Members to keep their questions as brief as possible so that brief answers may be given.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment has been made of the effects of this scheme on teacher recruitment? As the vice-chancellors are extremely concerned about the quality of teacher recruitment, may we have the names of the vice-chancellors who support the scheme?
Mr. Baker: As far as I know, no vice-chancellor has seen the scheme because it has been prepared and made available to the House today. What the hon. Gentleman might be referring to are the views that have been advanced by various vice-chancellors in the continuing debate on the funding of higher education institutions. We are reviewing teacher recruitment. Clearly it is one of my responsibilities to ensure a good flow of teachers over the coming decade for the introduction of the national curriculum. We shall bring forward proposals to deal with that.
Mr. David Madel: Do the changes in student support mean that the Government think that there should be a change in the length of university terms and degree courses? If that happened, it would have an impact on student finances.
Mr. Baker: That is a separate matter. It is interesting that higher education institutions are more flexible about the nature of a degree course. The traditional degree course of three years for one subject has given way in many universities to combined subjects. I visited a university last week that is combining with its local polytechnic to have a master of science course over four years. That is an interesting development whereby students can cross from polytechnic to university on a combined course. I want to encourage such an experiment, not chill it off. There is nothing implicit in the scheme about the length of degree courses.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I have known the Secretary of State for 18 years. Is he aware that it is pathetic to listen to him introducing such extreme Right-wing ideas on higher education? The Secretary of State mentioned loans, but does he understand that many students who will need the loan will not ask for it because they will know full well that they will be unable to repay it? However the Secretary of State dresses up this scheme, it is a deliberate attempt to exclude from university education youngsters in lower socio-economic groups. When three years ago at the Tory party conference the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that the Tory party was determined to write off the education prospects of generations of youngsters, he could never have dreamt for a minute that his former parliamentary private secretary would introduce such a scheme.
Mr. Baker: I am astonished to hear these proposals described as extreme Right-wing ideas. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Socialist Sweden did this in the 1960s? Does he appreciate that the Labour Government of Australia are going much further than this scheme and are introducing a tax on students for their tuition fees? Does he realise that the Labour Government of New Zealand are proposing a tax on students? Many people will say that my scheme is rather modest compared to those proposals.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome this reform of the system—despite expenditure five times greater than the European average, it has failed with regard to blue collar access—but does the Secretary of State agree that it will not only improve access but give students more investment in their education, from which they will benefit financially in the future, and will lead to

319
a more flexible form of funding for continuous higher education throughout life, which will become more important in the future?
M. Baker: The flexibility point is important. We are leaving it to the institutions, universities and polytechnics to decide how they should operate their access funds. That will introduce a degree of flexibility. I hope that many imaginative ideas will come forward from them on tailored packages of support for particular types of courses and particular students. I am sure that that will lead to more of our young people going into our colleges, polytechnics and universities.
Mr. George Galloway: It would appear that, even in the damper regions of the Department of Education and Science, the barbarians are through the gates. This is a Government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Is the Secretary of State aware that there are already student loans, and they are called bank overdrafts? Hundreds of student constituents of mine are up to their ears in debt. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Robbins principle. Is he happy that he will go down in history as having replaced the Robbins principle with the begging bowl Baker principle of higher education?
Mr. Baker: I quoted from Robbins, who clearly foresaw the introduction of a loan. The hon. Gentleman attacks our proposals. What is the Labour party's policy?
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it not fair to say that the opportunity of top-up loans will further enhance the opportunities for students by making them more responsible for their actions, more appreciative of the opportunity to go to university or college and, most of all, more selective in their choice of course so that it can match the job market when they come out of college or university?
Mr. Baker: I could not have put it better myself. I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): The hon. Lady means that only the rich will have a choice.
Mr. Baker: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I made my statement and answered most of the questions, so I ask him to read the White Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East(Mrs. Hicks)said that we are inviting students to make a financial investment in their future. It is right to do that, because those students will move into substantially higher paid jobs. With greater responsibility, they can much better decide the kind of courses they want to undertake. We want to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible for them to have a wider choice.
Mr. Terry Fields: Would it not have been more honest for the Secretary of State to say, "The message for working class families and youth is that there is no future in our system. We do not need an educated working class, so we are putting barriers on access to higher education for working people"? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that youth and students will fight him, and other Labour Members and I will join them to defeat this class-based legislation?
Mr. Baker: I am sure that there is no meaningless barricade that is not filled by the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to compare the recruitment figures for the Liverpool polytechnic and the Liverpool university under the Conservatives with the recruitment figures under Labour.
Mr. Tim Janman: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on bringing forward these long overdue proposals. Does he agree that the current cost of the many thousands of students who take out overdraft facilities because their parents do not make up the contribution is far higher than the zero real interest rate which my right hon. Friend has announced in what essentially amounts to a formalisation of the current system? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement will increase access? Can he quantify that increase in access? Finally—
Mr. Speaker: Not "finally". In fairness to other hon. Members, three questions are enough.
Mr. Baker: As I have said, since 1979 there has been a substantial increase of nearly 200,000 students. We have set ourselves a target of increasing, in the lifetime of this Parliament, by 50,000 the number of higher education students. I think that we are likely to reach that target this year, two years before the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is that not good news? Is not the Labour party glad to know that there will be 50,000 more students in higher education and there are still two more glorious years to run, perhaps three—I am not announcing the date of the election.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) for his support. My proposal will certainly lead to more access. We have set ourselves high targets, and we shall reach them.
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Secretary of State will recall that he recently visited Leicester university. He will remember that for two reasons: first, he was hit by a very large pot of yogurt—which I deplore, because it was a waste of yogurt—and, secondly, he had a meeting with the president of the students union in Leicester, who spoke about the fact that students at Leicester university were suffering from the low grants. Given the Government's obsession with polling and market research, can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single piece of research that will show hon. Members the likely outcome of these proposals on access to further education? How many student organisations did the right hon. Gentleman consult before he wrote these proposals?
Mr. Baker: I was delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman in Leicester, but I am sorry that he was not walking with me shoulder and shoulder through his supporters.
I have answered several times the point about access. I confidently expect that the numbers in higher education, in polytechnics and universities will increase because of our proposals. The numbers have increased consistently over the past few years and will continue to increase. We are providing a possibility of greater resources for the great bulk of students.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement generally which will leave the overwhelming majority of students far better off. I particularly welcome the proposal for access funds which will be set up to provide for the hard cases which are

321
inevitable. My right hon. Friend said that these funds would be administered by the higher education institutions. Within what criteria established by my right hon. Friend will those institutions administer those funds?
Mr. Baker: I want to give only the broadest guidance because I want to leave as much discretion as possible in the institutions' hands. It is a novel feature of our proposals that we regularly provide the universities and institutions with funds of their own, whereby they can provide their own scholarships and bursaries and tailor-make certain proposals for particular types of courses for particular students. Universities used to do that in the past to some extent and some universities around the world do it. Under the American system, where there is much more access throughout the social classes, it is common for universities and colleges to have quite large funds of this sort so that they can tailor particular proposals for particular students. It is for individual students to approach individual universities and polytechnics and come forward with their own proposals. I am sure that eventually Labour Front-Bench Members will support that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the reason why well-heeled Conservatives want these changes the fact that many of them are making maximum contributions, and they want to save money? That is what Tories have told me. Is it not true that, under the Government's scheme, Tories will have an excuse for saying to their kids, "Take out a loan and fund your education, because I shall not pay for you any more"? This is the real reason behind the proposals: the Conservatives do not want to dig into their pockets.
Mr. Baker: That is an extraordinary proposition. The hon. Gentleman has supported a Government whose actions led to parents digging into their own pockets. The grant was means-tested under Labour and it is means-tested now. This means that a third of parents do not dig into their pockets and make a full parental contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) rightly said, this loan facility means that young people will be able to make up the amount which is not made up by their parents.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed, especially by those on non-mandatory courses? Will he therefore ignore the brickbats made of straw? Does he recognise that most people realise that access to higher education greatly increases a person's earning capacity and that most people would be pleased to be offered a loan at a nil rate of interest?
Mr. Baker: I am sure of that and I am sure that there will be a substantial take-up of the loan. I completely agree with my hon. Friend's earlier comments. The loan will be taken up. Many people will realise that they are making a good investment in their future. I confirm that graduates' earnings are much higher than average earnings.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he is defenceless against the accusation that these proposals are highly detrimental to the interests of the children of working-class families?
322
Does he also appreciate that even Korea, in percentage terms, trains more of its youngsters than we do? When will the Secretary of State and his Government recognise that if we are to build a successful economy we need to train all our bright youngsters, irrespective of social considerations?
Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he has to address the question why we have such a substantially expensive system of student support that is not achieving the objectives that he wants. Countries that have much less expensive systems of student support have a very much higher proportion of students in higher education. Only 10 per cent. of that age group in the United Kingdom study for degrees, compared with 20 per cent. in France, 15 per cent. in West Germany and 25 per cent. in Japan. All those countries have some system of grants and loans.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend knows that there is much greater access to higher education in the United States and that many students work their way through college. Will he put into perspective the proposed loans? Almost the first thing that most students do when they graduate in this country and get a job is to go to their bank manager for a loan to buy a car.
Mr. Baker: I am sure that that happens. My hon. Friend's comparison with America is interesting. There is a very much higher level of borrowing at all levels of access in America. It has led to many more young people in America going to college; that is one of the successes of the American system. I want many more of our young people to go to college, and I am quite sure that that will be the result of the proposals that I have announced.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I can see no mention in the White Paper of the number of additional students that the Secretary of State thinks will gain access to higher education. Can he tell the House how many students he thinks there will be as a result of his proposals?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that he is taking away the right of students to claim housing benefit, unemployment benefit and income support? Will he admit that for very many students that means that they will be £275 worse off and that the loan will only just about cover their benefits? Is he not setting up a special student social fund under which students will have to repay benefits rather than receive them? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, while better-off parents will contribute rather less, those on lower incomes will progressively have to make a greater contribution to student grants?
In the Government's plastic society, far from students getting their flexible friend, the Baker card will be a visa to 25 years of debt. It will certainly not be a passport to greater access.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman's final remarks were a trifle strained and a trifle contrived. As for his important questions about disentitlement to benefit, our estimate is that in 1991 the average, spread over all students, that they will claim in benefits will be about £150. However, we estimate that about 50 per cent. of students will not claim. For those students who do claim, our estimate is that the figure comes out at just below £300. The figure that we are recommending for the first year is an additional loan

323
facility of £420. For the second year, it will be £504. They will have greater access to an even larger amount of money.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take points of order now; I am on my feet. May I say to those hon. Members whom I have not called that I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate this matter—possibly during the debate on the Loyal Address—when I shall give them precedence.

Earth Tremors (Stoke-on-Trent)
4.33 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for a full and thorough investigation into recent earth tremors in the north part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent."
This week's earth tremor affected people living in Smallthorne, Bradeley, High lane, Mill Hill and Chell. It measured a magnitude of 1·9 on the Richter scale and is the third tremor—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Walley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This may not be an earth-shattering matter for hon. Members, but it is certainly a matter of great concern to people in my constituency.
It is the third tremor in this small area in the last 12 months and it is the second in less than three weeks. Everybody who is affected is quite right to be distressed and concerned about the potential damage to their properties, and even more so when it appears that a pattern of earth tremors is now emerging.
We should be given every assistance to make sure that the area is being properly monitored and that the necessary national resources and equipment are on hand to enable the city of Stoke-on-Trent, the university of Keele's geography department and local residents to understand the extent of the problem and to establish whether there is a link between the current series of earth tremors and the abandonment of deep pit mining and changed Coal Board practices in that area.
The British Geological Survey is currently unable to provide Stoke-on-Trent with the detailed kind of monitoring that is required. I understand that the university of Keele has not yet received funding from the University Grants Committee to deploy seismic stations in the north part of Stoke-on-Trent.
Given the long history of earth tremors in this area, the lack of adequate monitoring equipment, which once was available in Stoke-on-Trent and has now been taken away, and the genuine concern and distress felt by people who are affected, detailed monitoring and analysis is urgently needed. Therefore I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order that we can have a full debate to make sure that these issues are immediately addressed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for a full and thorough investigation into recent earth tremors in the north part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent."
I have listened with care and concern to what the hon. Lady has said, but I do not consider that the matter she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope, however, that she will have other opportunities to bring the matter before the House.

Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
4.36 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, referring to the behaviour of the Minister for Sport. He has treated this House with contemptuous disregard, both for its rights and its purposes, for the third time is succession, in making, or seeking to make, statements of great importance outside this House. He held a press conference at 3·30 pm when he should have been making an oral statement to the House on the subject of his football membership scheme.
Matters of considerable substance are involved in the Minister's statement. For example, it contains a completely unprecedented constitutional point. According to the scheme, the Minister for Sport proposes to insist that Scottish football supporters attending matches at Wembley or elsewhere in England should be required to register with an English or Welsh football club. That is an unparalleled proposal, it insults all Scottish football supporters and it will be completely impracticable.
The proposal also requires information about convicted persons to be supplied by the courts, fed into computers and used at football matches. You will know Mr. Speaker, that under British law it is unlawful for the courts or the police to provide information about convictions. That makes the Minister's proposals ludicrous in the extreme.
The proposals will also infringe civil liberties. The report contains nine objections from the football authorities. In those circumstances, I submit that the Minister should be required to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members look at the Order Paper, they will see what business is before us. I see no hope of any time being available for a statement to be made except perhaps very late tomorrow morning. Whether a Minister makes a statement to the House about any subject is not a matter for me. I know that hon. Members often feel annoyed that certain information is imparted by way of written answer rather than by oral statement, but statements eat into the time allotted to the main business of the day; and the Government must take responsibility for deciding how many there should be.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a constitutional question. There has been absolutely no consultation in Scotland or any suggestion that this document has anything to do with Scotland—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that this is not a matter for me.
Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As long as it is not on this matter.
Mr. Carlisle: My point of order concerns the courtesies of the House. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook spoke about the courtesies of the House and the Minister making a statement. I seek your guidance in regard to hon. Members obtaining a document by deceit, and going to sporting conferences. The right hon. Member—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What documents hon. Members get hold of is not a matter of order in the Chamber. I have already ruled that whether a statement is made is not a matter for me. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has been here a good length of time. He must not disobey the Chair. I cannot take further points of order on this matter.
Mr. Carlisle: My point of order is not to do with the statement. It concerns whether it is in order for Privy Councillors to have documents such as this while they are embargoed and to publish and talk about them before the House has had an opportunity to hear what they are about. That is what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did today. He discussed and criticised this excellent document before it was announced in the House. Is it right that the House should not be given an opportunity to discuss the document first? Is it not a discourtesy to the House that the document has been taken and discussed before the Minister has had an opportunity even to answer the question on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: Whether hon. Members get documents and how they get them is not a matter of order in the Chamber. I repeat that this is not a matter for me.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was quite clear to every hon. Member that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) obtained the report by deceit. I do not know whether that makes the Minister a liar as it was the Minister who supplied my right hon. Friend with the copy that he has with him. We would like you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for Luton, North to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Luton, North, who I think cheated on his point of order, used the word "deceit". I thought that he was referring to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Will he please withdraw the allegation?
Mr. John Carlisle: I consider it deceitful, but—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please withdraw the allegation.
Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has expressed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Member one chance to withdraw the allegation.
Mr. Carlisle: I withdraw the allegation of deceit.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
4.43 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an entirely different matter and I do not think that it will raise hackles as much as the previous one. It is about what happened last night at about 9.50 pm. Madam Deputy Speaker took your place in the Chair. There was a likelihood of a closure motion, but it never materialised. The Ayes were called because nobody else stood up and there was no call. That appears in column 261 of Hansard for last night. Madam Deputy Speaker, as Seond Deputy Chairman said:
"As many as are of that opinion say Aye."
There was no answer. She continued,
"To the contrary No."
At column 262, Hansard records:
"Hon. Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it." At that point, we had defeated the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. The Tories realised that they had made a grave error. They had not shouted, but then they decided to shout, "Aye." which is recorded in Hansard accordingly. They were too late. Hansard continues:
"Madam Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobbies."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; vol. 140, c. 261–2.]
Since I have been a Member of Parliament, Governments of both parties have made mistakes, but on each occasion, as with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill some time ago, if a mistake was made, the thing had to stand. In those circumstances, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill would have had to start from scratch in the next Parliament, not halfway through its proceedings, as at present.
The Clerks told me last night that they were a bit unsure themselves, so I went to hear the tapes. They are quite clear. Before you make a decision, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to hear them. They are much clearer than I expected, bearing in mind the noise that can occur when a Division is being called for. There is not a single whisper of an Aye, but there are distinct Noes. We can all get copies of the tapes nowadays.
The Associated British Ports(No. 2) Bill is important, and it was strongly contested by Opposition Members. We even had one or two Conservative Members support us in the Lobby. We cannot be messing about with procedures in the House when a Division is called and the Government make a mistake, or those who are promoting a Bill make a mistake. There is a question about who should have done the shouting, but the plain fact is that they did not deliver the voices. I am therefore asking you to listen to the tapes, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will find that Hansard has recorded it absolutely accurately. I believe that, in accordance with previous procedure, the Bill's progress should be halted and that if it is to go further, it should have to start again in the next Parliament.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please. I think that it has all been said.
Mr. Redmond: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I request your understanding, tolerance and guidance, because I am a relatively new Member and I am unsure of our
328
procedures. I am in no way criticising Madam Deputy Speaker for her error. We are all human and can honestly make mistakes. The rules of the House, however, are clearly laid down. If Conservative Members failed to follow the House's procedures correctly, the House's decision must still stand. Although Madam Deputy Speaker made a mistake, it is incumbent on you to consider what has been said and to rule that the Opposition were correct and that the Bill fell.
Mr. Speaker: I always look at Hansard, particularly when I have not been in the Chair. I have looked at Hansard to see what went on last night. I see that a point of order on this very matter was raised at the time by the Shadow Leader of the House and that the Deputy Speaker dealt with it. Thereafter, no further complaints were raised on the matter. If there was any concern about the matter, it should certainly have been raised last night, not now.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot back-deal. There was an opportunity to deal with the matter last night. We cannot back-deal on a matter which the House has already resolved.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This seems quite extraordinary to me. We raised a point of order at the time. We registered our concern and suggested that if the tapes were consulted they would show that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said is correct. I do this in no spirit of criticism of the Deputy Speaker, but this seems extraordinary to us. We raised the issue and raised the question of the tapes. They could not be heard immediately after the Division or while it was going on. Hon. Members have listened to the tapes and think that it would be right and proper for you to listen to them as well, as they bear out what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has asserted.
Mr. Speaker: The tapes are not the official record. I have regard to what appears in Hansard. I have no authority to overrule any decision which has been taken by the occupant of the Chair, and I do not propose to do so.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have no power to overrule an earlier decision.
Mr. Cryer: You seem to be implying, Mr. Speaker, that there must be a range of points of order to give testimony and strength to what we are saying. Since the Division took place last night, this is the first time that you have been in the Chair and the first opportunity that we have had to raise points of order. The point was made clearly last night and we thought that it had been registered. This is the first moment that we have been in a position to raise the matter again because it is the first opportunity that we have to refer you to the record in Hansard. Like you, Mr. Speaker, we recognise that the House depends on Hansard. If a mistake has been made and that fact is demonstrated in Hansard, there must be some facility for rectifying the mistake and the decision that was taken by the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have no power to order that. The matter should have been pursued last night—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."]—with the occupant of the Chair. It was so raised and it was dealt with. I have no power to overrule that.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, after Madam Deputy Speaker said
"I think that the Noes have it",
there appears the following line:
"Hon. Members: Aye.—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]
Surely that solves the problem.
Mr. Speaker: I have read Hansard, and I see nothing out of order on this issue. Ten-minute Bill—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cohen. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order on the issue with which I have dealt. I have dealt with it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to what has been printed in yesterday's Hansard.
Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with that. Ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cryer: It is an extremely important issue.
Mr. Speaker: It may be, but there is no precedent. It would be a precedent if I ruled on something which the Deputy Speaker did last night. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We must not let him get away with it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Who must not let him get away with it?
Mr. Skinner: It is here in Hansard.
Mr. Speaker: I have read yesterday's edition of Hansard.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall hear what the hon. Member for Workington has to say, and that will be it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If you read what the Deputy Speaker said, Mr. Speaker, you will find that she did not reply to the point of order which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). She said:
"Order. If I am to be heard, I ask hon. Members to listen."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140. c. 262.]
330
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order has not been responded to by the Chair. I believe that we have a right to a full and considered response from you, Mr. Speaker. If that cannot be done today, perhaps you will be able to respond tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Deputy Speaker put the Question again and collected the voices. That is what Hansard clearly shows. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it does not show that she collected the voices again. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rules of the House are fairly clear, and they are intended to protect hon. Members on both sides of the House. You, Mr. Speaker, and the other occupants of the Chair do your level best to ensure that they provide that protection. Yesterday, it was clear that there was discontent about the nature of private Member's Bills and the way in which they pass through the House with Government support. There was high feeling on both sides of the House.
Whatever there was in terms of feeling, however, there were no voices to be heard at the appropriate time. I have no wish to criticise Madam Deputy Speaker, but we think that she got it wrong. If the matter is left as it stands, it will set a precedent for it will mean that the voices no longer matter. In future, there may be some instances where the Opposition would welcome the fact that voices did not matter, but the Government might not like that. We would like a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, on whether the voices will continue to matter.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly the voices matter. My ruling is a simple one and the House has heard it. I have no power or authority to overrule the decision of the occupant of the Chair at the time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is no ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I have no power to reverse what happened yesterday.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: The voices were collected and the Division took place. Mr. Harry Cohen—ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, God! Yes. What is it?
Mr. Tony Banks: No, Mr. Speaker—Frank Cook actually.
Mr. Speaker: It was intended to be a compliment.
Mr. Cook: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not responding immediately when you agreed to hear my point of order. I was struck dumb by my sudden promotion.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I am a recent appointee to the Select Committee on Procedure. If I cannot understand what is happening, Mr. Speaker, there may be other members of the Select Committee who find that they are in similar difficulties. Perhaps I should recount my experience of sitting on the far end of the Opposition Front Bench as a Whip. When I did not say No loud enough when voices were being collected, Mr. Deputy Speaker said that the call was not loud enough, that that was hard luck and that we

331
had lost the Division. The collection of voices is important. That has been the position in the past and it continues to be the position.
The issue is, when are procedures total and finite and when are they to be ignored? We have already heard, Mr. Speaker, that there was no ruling and that the House merely went on with the Division. If we do not have a ruling and if no guidance is given, I shall be lost. I shall be unable to fulfil my functions and carry out my responsibilities as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we should get on with today's business—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the House feels strongly about the matter, hon. Members should ask the Select Committee on Procedure to give Mr. Speaker authority to overrule other occupants of the Chair—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There was no ruling.
Mr. Speaker: —who took a particular decision. At present, I have no authority to do that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There was no ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The House cannot possibly ask Mr. Speaker to do something for which he has no authority and which he cannot do.
Mr. Dobson: I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you, with Madam Deputy Speaker and the Clerk, were to review what happened last night, and then to give a ruling for the future. We are not necessarily asking you to overrule what happened last night. We are asking you to take the course that I have suggested, in your role as the protector of everyone's rights in this place. We ask you to give a ruling on the application or otherwise of the Standing Orders that apply to voices, which clearly were not complied with last night. I think that everyone would agree that they should be authoritative.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raised a point of order at the time. He should have persisted with the matter last night.
Mr. Dobson: I have no wish to embarrass you, Mr. Speaker, as the occupant of the Chair. You seek to persuade us to make brief points of order, not to pursue them and not to continue to take up the time of the House. I thought last night—it is clear that my colleagues took the same view—that once we had had the opportunity of listening to the tape, we might get some response from you, Mr. Speaker. It was clearly unreasonable to ask Madam Deputy Speaker to leave the Chair to listen to the tape to ascertain what had gone on.
I find it a trifle upsetting to be told now that having raised a point of order at the moment that the issue arose, that point of order does not count. It seems that I am being
332
told that I should have persisted with it. I do not know what I should have said to Madam Deputy Speaker when she said:
"A Division is now in progress."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]
Should I have tried to interrupt the Division? We are asking you, Mr. Speaker, to review what happened last night, not necessarily to overrule it. We wish you to clarify exactly where we stand in relation to the Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker: We really should get on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The authoritative record is Hansard, not the tape. What matters is what the occupant of the Chair hears and what is recorded in Hansard. In fairness, it must not ask the Speaker to overrule the occupant of the Chair when he has no authority so to do.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is no ruling.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on this important matter. Is not the normal procedure that which happened yesterday—that the Second Deputy Chairman said,
"I think that the Noes have it."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]
She did not say, "The Noes have it. The Noes have it", as often happens, which is usually an invitation to the other side who wish to oppose to shout. Is it not correct that Madam Deputy Speaker then heard the point of order made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and made a ruling by continuing the Division, which was the end of the matter?
Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is not asking you to overrule Madam Deputy Speaker but to look at the matter. Fresh evidence has been raised and there is no reason why, without any commitment, you could not discuss the matter with the people concerned and come back to the House. I put that as a sensible suggestion to you.
Mr. Speaker: In order to conclude this matter, I will discuss what happened last night with the Deputy Speaker. She has already mentioned it to me this morning, but I shall discuss it with her further. I think that we should now get on.
Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot say more than I have said. Is the point of order on a different matter?
Mr. Meale: It is in relation to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have not made any ruling.

Parental Leave
5.1 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes.
I shall certainly be shouting aye loudly when I have presented the Bill.
I am pleased to reintroduce my Parental Leave Bill which was first introduced on 11 February last year, when it had considerable support in the nation. It is a radical and progressive measure for parents and children. It provides that mothers and fathers be allowed to take three months' paid leave during the first two years of their child's life. It can be in the first five years if the child is disabled or adopted. Parental leave will also apply to single parents and, on a pro rata basis, to part-time workers. It gives the parents the right to return to the same or similar work after an absence for child care.
The benefits of parental leave are enormous. It promotes equal opportunities, especially for women, and it gives a mother more options, knowing that the time off will be available to herself and her husband. It makes it easier for her to choose whether to return to work after the birth of her baby. With the provision of parental leave, her employment conditions take into account her real life circumstances—those of a mother. At present, many women are simply denied the choice of whether to return to work. Many of those who do return are in low-paid, low-calibre jobs, increasingly part-time, and their skills are neither properly used nor rewarded.
Parental leave also helps women to overcome the discontinuity in employment caused by child rearing. Britain has a low employment rate for women compared with the United States and other industrialised nations. A mother of two is out of the labour force for over seven years on average and loses earnings of more than £140,000 during her working life. That is unfair, but it could be overcome with measures such as my Parental Leave Bill.
Parental leave also distributes responsibility for child care more fairly between the parents, recognising it as a joint responsibility, not the woman's alone. Parental leave actively promotes that important change in attitude.
Parental leave also improves family and child welfare. It allows and encourages mother and father to work together as a team, sharing the burdens and the pleasures of caring for their baby. It recognises the importance of bonding, especially between father and child. Mr. T. Berry Brazelton, the chief medical officer of Harvard medical school in Boston, writing in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, said:
"We have seen that relatively minor, relatively inexpensive adjustments on the part of the medical system—such as … father participation … —can increase the opportunities for 'bonding' to the baby. Although this is likely to be only a first step toward fostering attachment and significantly enhancing the possibilities for the baby's optimal development, it is a most important step."
I could give many other examples from the experts.
Parental leave will also counter the growing incidence of child abuse in Britain and be a serious measure in the reduction of family stress, which can be so damaging.
334
Parental leave gives dads a fairer deal. Fathers are almost forgotten contributors to child development, but most want to contribute positively. Many, when given the opportunity, find that they enjoy spending time with their children.
The benefits are enormous and they are widely recognised abroad. For example, 10 of the 12 EC countries already have parental leave arrangements. That is recognised by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his letter to me dated 10 June. Britain is dragging its feet in denying working parents parental leave. The Government say that the EC countries have widely differing provisions, but at least they have them. Britain should have them as well. The Government should not continue to veto the EC draft directive.
The cost of parental leave has been referred to as a problem. The EC scheme would at most cost only £45 million. Mine would cost more, mainly because it is better, but it would cost less than 0·1 per cent. of overall working costs. My Bill recognises the impact that parental leave would have on small businesses by setting up a parental leave fund so that such people would not lose out.
It is easier for the employer and employee to plan, and would cost less, if leave were authorised rather than being unauthorised, as happens now. The skills returned to those firms by women's return to work is also of considerable value and should be taken into account. The benefits of parental leave clearly outweigh its cost. That is why the rest of Europe has adopted some form of parental leave.
My Bill has received widespread support. Significantly, active support has come from the British Medical Association, which says that it will give British parents the same opportunities as the majority of their counterparts in Europe, laying the foundations for a secure family life. The BMA goes into greater detail, which I shall not deal with because of the shortage of time, but it also presses parental leave upon the National Health Service, where it says it is very much needed, and the matter is being taken up at Whitley council level. In recognition of that, and in their role as employer, the Government should move towards parental leave.
My Bill is also supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission. It believes that there is an urgent need for such an arrangement to assist the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities and to encourage a more equitable sharing of the latter. It is also supported by the National Childbirth Trust. [Interruption.] Hon. Members groan every time I mention such organisations.
The Maternity Alliance supports my proposals and states that there needs to be a statutory right to parental leave as that would be the single most important step to reducing the disadvantages suffered by working parents, although it would like to see other improvements in child care provision as well. The Maternity Alliance itself has the support of more than 50 national organisations, some of which are very well known.
My Bill has the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), so it is agreed Labour party policy that a system of parental leave should be introduced. It has the support of many trade unions. NUPE has sent me a letter giving the Bill its strong support and urging the Government to think again about the draft directive and their veto of it. Many local authorities have also written to me to that effect.

335
The denial of parental leave is part of the Government's reduction in overall child care support which includes the freezing of child benefit last week. There have been any number of reductions. Last week, The Observer commented:
"Mothers bringing up Britain's next generation are made to feel like scroungers."
That is because of the effect that cuts have on child care. My Bill seeks to rectify that. My purpose in introducing it now is to influence the Queen's Speech and to make the Government think again; to start acting in favour of children and the family rather than utter platitudes while at the same time marching in the opposite direction and cutting child benefit.
The European Commission report, "Child Care and Equality of Opportunity" stated that the principal aim
"is a Europe where the work and responsibility involved in child care is properly valued and more equally distributed; where parents can reconcile family responsibilities and employment … in a way that is satisfying and does not involve disadvantage and inequality; and where children can get the advantage of a range of positive and enhancing experiences at home, in child care services and society at large. These aims concern both equality and quality of life."
My Bill is part of that aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Tony Benn and Mr. Bob Clay.

Parental Leave
  PARENTAL LEAVE
  Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 230.]
Orders of the Day

  Housing Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have for a number of months expressed our concern about the way in which the Bill has been handled both in the House and outside. I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker—although I recognise that there is little you can do—the fact that last Wednesday during Environment Question Time there were two opportunities for the Government to tell the House of Commons first what they intended doing about housing action trusts and their vote.
  In fact, the Government announced their intentions to the nation on a television programme last Sunday. As one of my hon. Friends described it, it was Government by Dimbleby. We object to Government announcements being made on television when only a few days previously they missed an opportunity of dealing with the matter during questions, which only serves to devalue Question Time.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not only was the Government's announcement on television extremely vague, but when my office phoned the appropriate Government Department a little later, it did not know whether or not an announcement had been made. We often complain to you, Mr. Speaker, knowing that all you can do is to listen, and that you are a means of passing on our complaints. I realise that you cannot do anything, but I wish to register a very strong protest.
  My other point concerns a matter that we have been raising for a year. We have had the shortest possible time, rather than the normal amount of time, to deal with matters that have come to this House from another place. I realise that we are near to the end of this Session, but corners are being cut far too often, particularly in respect of major legislation affecting millions of people, and that is not acceptable.
  Mr. George Howarth: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has problems enough arising from the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water being in another place and not accountable to this House. That is compounded by the fact that major announcements are made on television rather than from the Floor of this House. There is a strong feeling on the Opposition Benches that it borders on contempt when announcements are made in that way.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the broadcast in question concerned housing action trusts. I did not see it myself, but right hon. and hon. Members know my view that the House should always be the first to be told about such matter, rather than learn through other means. It will be possible to debate this matter under Lords amendment No. 111. Perhaps that will be the moment when right hon. and hon. Members who heard the broadcast can comment and ask questions.

Clause 1

  ASSURED TENANCIES.
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, after "(2)" insert "or subsection (5)"
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 45, 46, 166 and 250.
  Mr. Trippier: Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are designed to help local authorities arrange temporary accommodation for homeless people to whom they owe a duty under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985. Under that Act, local authorities have a duty to house the homeless temporarily in certain circumstances. Where an authority provides the temporary accommodation itself, it will normally have no difficulty obtaining possession when the time comes for the occupant to leave, because the Act provides tht lettings of that temporary kind are not secure tenancies for the first 12 months.
  There can be problems where the temporary accommodation is provided by arrangement with another landlord, such as a housing association. The landlord needs to be sure that he can get possession when necessary to house other families. The amendments, which are modelled on the equivalent provision in the 1985 Act, thus provide that a tenancy granted by arrangement with a local authority pursuant to its duties to arrange temporary housing will not normally be assured during an initial 12 month period. Amendment No. 250 adds a similar provision to the equivalent Scottish legislation.
  Amendments Nos. 2, 166, 3, 45 and 46 are concerned with tenancies where the landlord is a fully mutual housing association—usually referred to as a housing co-operative. The Bill provides that such tenancies cannot be assured tenancies. We included this on the argument that a statutory regime designed to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant has little relevance in a situation where, as is the nature of a co-operative, the interests of landlord and tenants as a whole are, in effect, indivisible.
  It has none the less emerged that a small number of co-operatives are at present letting on the basis of old-style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1980. We accepted that it would be wrong, as a matter of principle, to deprive the tenants in those cases of statutory protection that they now have. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 45 deal with the problem by providing that an old-style assured tenancy under which the landlord is a fully mutual housing association will become, on commencement of the Act, a new-style assured tenancy.
  Mr. Soley: This important amendment deals with assured tenancies. I should be grateful if the Minister will clarify certain points. He mentioned that, in certain circumstances, temporary accommodation may be provided by housing associations. However, amendment No. 45 implies that it will not necessarily be a housing association that is involved. In other words, the amendments could apply to any new landlord, and that is likely to be the case.
  Lords amendment No. 4 is the meat of this group of amendments. Current legislation will result in many local
  338
  authorities having no housing to offer the homeless, while still having a statutory duty to house them. It is feared that the Government are seeking to get rid of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, or at least to redefine it so that it means ruthlessness. They will then be able to fiddle the figures much as they have done with the unemployment statistics, rather than solving the problem of homelessness, which is much more important than fiddling figures.
  Under existing legislation, some local authorities are already trying to transfer all their housing stock to housing associations or other organisations. The Minister recently sent out guidance to local authorities, which appalled me when I read it, and which incidentally was never raised in the Standing Committee. One of the reasons why we complain about the management of the Bill at every available opportunity is that we did not debate many of these issues in Committee, because the Government had not given us the necessary information, or else made changes after the relevant stage was over.
  The guidance stated that local authorities transferring all their stock might wish to enter a private contract with another landlord for the housing of homeless people. That raises a number of questions. For one thing it means privatising the homeless, but other matters never debated in Committee also become relevant here.
  Let us suppose that, after a local authority has transferred all its stock, someone appears at the local council office claiming homelessness, perhaps accompanied by a couple of young children. The local authority enters into a contract with a private landlord who says that he will take the family, but we do not know how long he will have to take them for; it may be a long time or quite a short time. The problem will be complicated in some areas where the only alternative is for the homeless people to stay with that landlord, but if he keeps them for longer than 12 months their tenancy position will change.
  The Minister puts the measure forward as a way of dealing with the problem of someone who becomes homeless but should not be made an assured tenant because the landlord will want to move him on in due course. In those circumstances, what will happen to the homeless family? Will they go back to the local authority and say that they have become homeless again because of the wording of the Bill?
  The Government have made it clear many times that they intend to get local authorities to give up all their council housing. Even if we agree with that, which I do not, it is nonsense to get authorities to give up housing without being able to replace it. I do not think that anyone apart from the Government believes that the private sector will replace it. We know that that sector has lost even more rented accommodation since 1980 than suggested by some of my original estimates. Well over 550,000 lets have gone in the past few years. We also know that well over half the lets in London are outside the Rent Acts, so they would not seem to have much to do with it.
  A number of further problems arise from the local authority's contract with the private landlord. First, we have no indication of what he can or should charge. If he is a monopoly supplier he may be able to charge the earth, and presumably the ratepayer will have to pick up the bill. The local authority, however, may be able to choose between two or three landlords. If, as the Minister has said, the landlord will want the homeless person out, perhaps the Government propose that, before the 12

  339
  months are up, the local authority should ring up yet another landlord and say, "In a few months Mr. Brown, who has kindly been housing a homeless family, will not house them any more, because if he does he will have to take them for good—or at least under the conditions of an assured tenancy. If we are to avoid that, we need someone else to take them."
  Presumably Mr. Smith, who has been approached to take the family from Mr. Brown, will say, "I don't know. Are you going to leave them with me for as long as you left them with Mr. Brown?" The family will be, at best, passed around from one landlord to another, each landlord having to foreclose within 12 months. Alternatively, the local authority will have to try to wriggle out of its responsibilities.
  The Observer of the Sunday before last featured an article about a Department of the Environment report which said that some local authorities took their responsibilities to the homeless much more seriously than others. The article claimed that the Government were deliberately suppressing the report because it said that, although councils were dealing with the homeless very well, some—Westminster was cited as an example, which came as no great surprise—were finding reasons for not housing them. Others, such as Birmingham, tried to rehouse them within a day. Birmingham is of course a Labour council. That says something about the different values on the two sides of the House.
  A report produced by the Department, not by me or my supporters, states that some authorities are now backsliding on their responsibilities to the homeless. The amendment will mean either that landlord and local authority will vie with each other to move the family on or that, if the authority is desperate or devious enough, that it may try to persuade the landlord to keep the family for longer than a year to obtain the greater assurance for which the amendment provides. The argument thus becomes extremely complex.
  As so often in the Bill, the Government have said that this is only a small change and that the Lords have made an improvement. I shall not argue about the nature of the improvement, but, as always, the handling of the change has meant no debate in Committee or on Report, and the proposal has not been examined in depth. Now, for understandable and good reasons, the Lords have introduced a measure that will mean many homeless people either being shunted between landlords or pushed out into the street again. Alternatively, the council will try to back them by persuading a private landlord to keep them for a long time.
  I think that the Bill is a disaster. I make no bones about that. Last year homelessness doubled in this country, and I have no doubt that it will double again, not least because of the Chancellor's absurd interest rates policy. He claims as an example of its working for the economy that it makes it harder to get mortgages—in other words, harder to buy. Given that it is already harder to rent, we must ask where on earth people on low incomes are supposed to rent or buy. The answer that the Government always give is that somehow or other, the private sector will resurrect itself and make up the difference and homeless people will be able to turn to the private sector. But there is no sign that that is happening.
  We are being asked to accept Lords amendments to deal with that, so we need to know how local authorities are supposed to deal with homeless persons in the
  340
  circumstances that I have described. No one denies that there will be an increase in homelessness. The other day I was interested to hear either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State say that one of the problems of homelessness was young women getting pregnant in order to jump the queue. I find that suggestion offensive and insulting. The number of women in a decade in Britain who decide to get pregnant in order to jump the housing queue probably could be counted on one hand. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) may shake his head, but it is incredibly insulting to suggest that women get pregnant for that reason
  5.30 pm
  Conservative Members forget that there is a duty on local authorities to tell people who is entitled to be housed. In certain circumstances, they have a duty to house women who are going to have babies. However, that does not mean that women rush out and get pregnant in order to jump the list. Even if that were the case, it is clear from the statistics that the fastest-growing reason for homelessness is mortgage repossession. One in 10 homeless families are homeless because they cannot pay their mortgage. One in 10 of homeless families are homeless because of mortgage foreclosure, compared with about one in 25 under the last Labour Government. That is the nature and extent of the problem.
  Under the Bill and the existing legislation, local authorities are already moving all their tenants into the private sector. They are asking housing associations to take them over, they are setting up housing associations or, in some cases, they are looking for private landlords, who are not part of the public sector as are housing associations—at least in part. The Government have not told the councils or the people of this country—some of whom will become homeless—what will happen when people present themselves as homeless at the town hall, the town hall parcels them out to one of the contracted private landlords, and the private landlord says, "The Bill as amended says that if I keep you for too long, you become an assured tenant. I cannot risk that, so you will have to go."
  Am I correct in my interpretation that the amendment relates to all landlords, and not just to housing associations? Secondly, will the Minister spell out in detail his views on how local authorities are supposed to deal with homelessness when the homeless have been contracted out to private landlords who are worried about keeping them for too long in case they become assured tenants?
  Mr. John Battle: I am glad that at last the word "homeless" appears in the Bill. It has only just appeared in an amendment at this very late stage. Certainly, some hon. Members, at least those on the Opposition Benches, believe that the Bill will generate homelessness, but I am glad to see that at least the word appears in the Bill.
  I am grateful to the Minister for a reply that I received to a question I tabled earlier this month.
  Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware of a parliamentary reply I received from the Department of the Environment? I asked what study had been made of prospective tenants on housing waiting lists and of whether people waiting for accommodation from local

  341
  authorities could pay the market rents. I received a reply from the Minister saying that no such study had been carried out. Does my hon. Friend agree that the large majority of people on housing waiting lists would be in no position to pay market rents?
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as questions quite often receive deceptive replies. I would couple the question to which my hon. Friend has referred with a question that he asked earlier to which he received a reply from the Government suggesting that there should be no more council house building in Britain.
  Earlier this month I asked the Minister
  "What advice he proposes to give to local authorities which have no housing stock about their fulfilment of their statutory duty to house the homeless."
  I remind the Minister of his reply. He referred to the guidelines that his Department issued in June and said:
  "This makes it clear that local authorities must make adequate arrangements to continue to meet their statutory obligations in relation to housing the homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985. In deciding whether to give consent to large-scale disposal, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that such arrangements have been made."—[Official Report, 2 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 689.]
  That is a circular answer which builds a circular argument for the Government. It is not a question of large-scale disposals which may leave behind some council housing. What will happen when all the council housing has gone? How on earth will a council be able to fulfil its obligations to house the homeless, unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggested—he asked the Government to clarify this—the interpretation behind the amendment is that the Government intend local authorities to make arrangements with private landlords? Is that the case, or are the Government suggesting that in future local authorities make arrangements with housing action trusts and give them the statutory obligations to house the homeless? That is not in the Bill.
  If that is the case, it is clear that a hidden agenda lies behind the amendment, and the Government are beginning to offload the duties of local authorities to house the homeless on to private landlords and housing associations. That would change the offer to homeless people from that of a secure tenancy to a temporary provision and downgrade their status in society.
  Will the Minister make it absolutely plain to the House tonight that the Government do not intend to downgrade the status of the homeless and to shift the bed-and-breakfast option into statutory provision? That could be a consequence of the measure. If councils have no housing for homeless people, where can they go except into bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Ministers have condemned bed and breakfast as a bad deal costing the taxpayers excessive amounts in housing benefit. Will the Minister now say that that is not the option that will be left? If a local authority is to be told that it can fulfil its statutory obligations only by supporting bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the Bill ends where it started and does not tackle the real problems of housing in our society. I hope that tonight the Minister will give us some assurance that that is not the hidden agenda behind the amendment.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have only one question to put to the Under-Secretary of State, and I welcome him to the debate. It is particularly unsatisfactory that, for the first time for many years, we have no Minister for Housing who is a Member of the House. I know that the Secretary of State heads the Department, and it is proper that he is on the Government Front Bench. However, it is entirely unacceptable that the person entrusted by the Government with the responsibility for housing has no constituents whatsoever. He has no constituents who tell him about the plight of the homeless, who come to him homeless or who tell him about the effects of the cuts in housing benefit, about their difficulties in obtaining a move or about their conditions.
  I have not checked, and I have no idea how large an estate or how large a home or homes the Earl of Caithness has—[Interruption.] It is entirely relevant, because people who live in mansions on large estates have no idea what it is like to live in damp tower blocks or inner-city slums. I know what it is like because I live in the middle of my constituency, which is one of the worst and most deprived housing areas in Britain.
  I understand that the arrangements are temporary and that the Minister for Housing may be packed off elsewhere after he has done his job of getting the remaining amendments through the House of Lords. If we are to have housing legislation in the next Session, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will do the House and the country the courtesy of appointing a Minister for Housing who is accountable to the House of Commons and who has some idea of what the housing crisis in Britain in 1988 is like.
  Mr. John Heddle: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the noble Lord, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside is a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which may enable him to bring some practical knowledge of housing Acts, landlords and tenants and housing generally to bear on his job? Does not that make him as well qualified for the job as a member of the Bar?
  Mr. Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's valid factual point about the Minister's qualifications, but it is entirely unacceptable that the man in charge of British housing has no constituents and is elected by no one. Recent housing legislation has been the result of the Government's failure to understand. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the programme "On the Record" on Sunday—
  Mr. Heddle: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, I did; I did not see the beginning, but I watched the whole interview with the noble Lord. The U-turn, or concession, made on housing action trust votes—we shall debate that later—came only because at some time in the summer the Secretary of State, his junior Minister and others went to meet real people to talk about real issues, thereby coming to understand the folly of the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman says, that ministerial statement was made on television, not here. Does not that emphasise the hon. Gentleman's point that the Government treat Parliament with

  343
  contempt, appointing unelected Ministers with responsibilities for major programmes of activity? These Ministers do not even announce major initiatives in the other place—they do so on television.
  Mr. Hughes: That is correct. The programme I have referred to was one of those extraordinary times when it was impossible to know whether an announcement had been made. Certainly, that was not clear to the interviewer or to the waiting public: was it a concession or an acceptance of the Lords amendment? That was not clarified until later, as I said in a point of order to Mr. Speaker.
  In future, I hope for clear announcements, made in the proper way, in the right place—this Chamber.
  I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question about Lords amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos. 1 and 4—especially No. 4—provide for two options. Present arrangements for housing the homeless, as laid down in the Housing Act 1985, are usually for assured tenancies for the first 12 months. Exceptionally, if people want to resile from that, they can create an assured tenancy in less than 12 months. What does the Minister regard as the appropriate policy for granting accommodation to the homeless? On Friday we are to debate these matters on a Government motion for the Adjournment. It would be helpful to know now whether the Government think that people who qualify for accommodation temporarily, indefinitely or permanently, because they are homeless, should be given only insecure accommodation—or the same security as anyone else.
  5.45 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have a simple question for the Minister, to which I want a full and honest response. How will local authorities deal with the homeless? Is the privatisation of homelessness to be forced on us, as happened with the care of the elderly by means of a series of measures? Now, there is wholesale private care of the elderly, whereas before local authorities had the resources to deal with them.
  If homelessness is to be privatised, the Minister must give us some guarantees, the more so as this is one of the few occasions in the course of proceedings on the Bill when we can discuss this subject. Friday is fine, but it is good to have a Minister here now to answer questions about the detail of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) mentioned bed and breakfast. Is that to be housing's equivalent of private residential homes for the elderly? Parallels between the two can be drawn. These moves cannot be justified even in the Government's own economic terms. They will be wasteful and destructive of family life—so much has already been proved. I have come across this as a local councillor. Sadly, during the past two or three years Halifax has developed a real homelessness problem. In the past it had a proud record of housing people; now we have full hostels, and we have to use bed-and-breakfast and private accommodation, which is often squalid. Local authorities are left with no alternative but to use it.
  The Government are using this Bill deliberately to destroy the welfare state. As an example of that, I offer a unique scheme in Halifax to rehouse young people, many of whom had offended or been in care. It was sabotaged even before it started because cuts in housing benefit made
  344
  it uneconomic. My constituency contains a high-rise block of flats that could have been put to good use. In conjunction with Stoneham housing association, the council was to furnish the flats and let them cheaply to homeless people, but, because of changes in the law this April, housing benefits are no longer available, which has left many of these youngsters £4·65 short each week.
  All these factors have combined to create a horrendous homelessness problem. Does the Minister intend to seek the wholesale privatisation of the homeless? He owes the House an honest answer.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Almost in the final hour of debate on this Bill, the Government have introduced the word "homelessness", thereby affording some recognition—albeit insignificant—to a growing problem.
  Over the past decade, the Government have presided over a doubling of homelessness in Britain, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Those figures are calculated by the Government and local authorities and do not include people who are homeless but do not qualify as such under the Act. Another reason why the Government are trying to give the impression that they are concerned about homelessness is that it was becoming clear throughout the summer in leaks from the Department that the Government intended to consider changing the whole nature of homelessness legislation in the Queen's Speech and to replace it with the concept of rooflessness. At that point the Government came under ever more powerful pressure because of their callous attitude to homelessness.
  Since July, five reports on the problem have been issued. The Audit Commission's final report has not yet been completed but the draft report is a damning indictment of the way in which the Secretary of State has handled and defined homelessness. The Commission said that the major reason for homelessness was the Government's market philosophy of housing, as shown in the Bill. It is also true that the Government, in trying to avoid the embarrassment of the report, have rushed out their own document about rural housing. That is a matter that we shall return to on other amendments.
  What has been said by the Institute of Housing and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? Those organisations completed major reports about housing this summer. On 9 November, a report was published in Housing magazine about homelessness. The report was prepared not by politicians but by professionals and it involved consultations with housing associations, local authorities, community groups and housing charities. The report comes to the conclusion that the Government's underinvestment in public housing is a major factor in the increase in homelessness in the United Kingdom. The report says:
  "Some means, such as 'homeless at home' schemes, exist to help reduce the use of bed and breakfast. We were also convinced that housing associations must play a more active role and offer greater assistance to local authorities in housing the homeless. Nevertheless … Government must accept responsibilities for meeting the needs of homeless people, instead of expecting local authorities with their limited administering resources, to bear the brunt. Direct action must be taken to ensure that the 50,000–70,000 extra homes a year … are actually built."
  Those homes should be built in the public sector.
  What is the Government's response to that call from the professional organisations involved in housing, the

  345
  voluntary sector and charities? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a clue in his autumn statement. Inside Housing, Volume 5, No. 43 says:
  "The bonanza caused by the rise in council house sales will not be reinvested in housing. That is the message contained in Chancellor Nigel Lawson's Autumn Statement published this week—and it's bleak news for local authorities and those in housing need … For 1989/90 local authorities have been given a negative cash limit: the total they will be allowed to spend (£3,303 million) will be less than the amount coming in from capital receipts (£3,490 m). Actual allocations through the housing investment programme will be cut 20 per cent. in cash—and nearly 26 per cent. in real terms—compared to this year, leaving a HIP total of only £920 m."
  That is the Government's response to the debate over the summer about the growing crisis of homelessness and that is why the Minister spoke so inadequately for the Lords amendments. None of the amendments will tackle the growing crisis of homelessness in Britain. The Government are creating not only an under-class, but a class of nomads who go from one hostel to another and from one bed-and-breakfast hotel to another. There is no opportunity for the single homeless or for homeless families to set down roots or to be involved in the community. The Government do not give a damn about that, because the homeless are also voteless. The crisis of homelessness denies people the opportunity to put down roots and the opportunity to have a say in the running of the country. The Government's policy of underinvestment shows a great disregard for many people in the United Kingdom. The Minister owes it us to bring forward genuine proposals this evening to deal with the growing crisis of homelessness.
  The Minister need only walk with me five minutes from the House to see men and women sleeping tonight in cardboard boxes. That is London 1988, not 1888. Tonight, 7,000 young people will sleep rough in the nation's capital. They are not feckless people who are unable to seek jobs. They were persuaded by the Government and by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get on their bike to seek their fortunes in the capital city. They find themselves not only isolated and jobless, but without a roof over their heads. That happens not only tonight, but every night of the year—in summer, winter, or spring.
  The Secretary of State does not seem to be able even to listen—or perhaps he does not like to hear about what happens to the homeless. He is responsible for the housing problem not only because of his intellectual contempt for the homeless, but because in a former life he was a private landlord. I can imagine his attitude to the homeless.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that if one goes over the river to Waterloo, one will see many homeless men and women sleeping out every night. Many do not take one penny off the state and never have done. Some of them still manage to go to work and earn money, although they can find nowhere to live and have no prospect of doing so for months on end. There are queues for the more sheltered spaces under the arches, let alone at housing offices up and down the country.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member is right. I shall make an offer to the Secretary of State. Will he come with me to the jobcentre in Victoria street and meet the young and middle-aged, men and women who are waiting for an odd job in hotels or, ironically, bed-and-breakfast
  346
  accommodation? They work during the day and sleep rough at night, yet they go back day after day to seek a living. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that they do not receive a single penny of benefit from the community. They do not receive housing benefit, unemployment benefit or income support.
  The crisis is not merely a crisis of rooflessness, as the Government put it; it is a crisis of the nation's social conscience. The Minister must take steps to meet that social crisis. Housing is an essential part of the issue, so he must come up not only with simple little phrases about dealing with homelessness, but with cash and resources to provide new housing to meet the crisis. He must do so before young people's lives are ruined. They run the risk not only of bad health caused by living rough, but of being morally corrupted. The Minister has refused to deal with the moral corruption of young men and women who are forced into immoral practices because they are unable to find jobs or houses, and the support of families and the community is denied to them.
  Will the Minister give a commitment to visit cardboard city and to meet the people who seek jobs at the jobcentre in Victoria street and then sleep on Charing Cross embankment? He should see for himself the results of the bankruptcy of Conservative policies on homelessness in this country.
  Mr. Winnick: Labour Members make no apology for being passionately concerned about the plight of the homeless, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I know that the Secretary of State has his good points on other matters—
  Mrs. Mahon: Which ones?
  Mr. Winnick: His good points are not in political matters. The Secretary of State simply does not care about housing. Some senior Ministers have a private concern about housing, which they do not often express. However, the Secretary of State has no public or private concern about the misery of the homeless. He does not understand the problem, he could not care less about it and he probably thinks that people could find accommodation if they really wanted to.
  We are debating an amendment that has a great bearing on the position of the homeless. Homelessness could be avoided if local authorities were able to build accommodation. I have been given figures that show that the number of new public sector starts for the coming financial year will be well below 20,000 for the whole country. That means that in some places, such as my borough, no local authority building has taken place for nine years. Unless the Government change their policy on local authority finance, there is not the slightest chance of any new building taking place. Ministers respond by asking, "What about the empty dwellings?" A number of dwellings are undoubtedly empty because work is being undertaken, but all the empty dwellings put together would be a drop in the ocean when compared to the need to house and rehouse people in the public sector.
  6 pm
  When I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) I referred to a ministerial reply that I had received. My question was a simple one. I asked whether the Department of the Environment had undertaken a survey to find out how

  347
  many people on the local authority housing waiting list were in a position to pay market rents. The whole emphasis of the Bill as regards the private sector is that all new tenancies will be subject to market rents, and it is therefore relevant to ask how many of those waiting for accommodation could pay market rents. I received the clear and simple reply that no such survey had been undertaken. That must be a matter of concern.
  I do not suggest that everyone on the waiting list is desperately in need of accommodation, but the people who come to my surgery and who write to me daily about their housing problems are in a miserable plight. A young couple came to my surgery last weekend. They do not have children and they live with the wife's mother, who has other adult children living in the household. When I explained to them that the Government believed that they should be able to solve their problem by getting a mortgage and buying a place, they laughed, because they simply do not have the means to obtain a mortgage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield spoke of homelessness in this part of London. That is partly the Government's responsibility, but much of the responsibility also undoubtedly rests with the leadership of Westminster council. The way in which that council is being run is absolutely scandalous. Westminster council is in the process of selling off as much of its accommodation as possible—with or without tenants. It is trying to privatise the homelessness problem and will not take responsibility for the homeless.
  It gives me no satisfaction to say that Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster council, is quite simply unfit to run a local authority. If the leadership had any understanding at all, it would be doing its utmost to fulfil its statutory responsibility for housing and would be putting pressure on the Government to allow it the finance necessary to house the homeless. Lady Porter, who almost acts as a dictator of the council rather than a normal leader of a local authority, does not seem to have any time for her Conservative colleagues, who are supposed to—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do not have much time for her, either."] Probably not. If ever a local authority needed to be investigated, it is the London borough of Westminster. Conservative Members may not be willing to echo my sentiments but I am sure that many of them—perhaps even those present now—privately accept that what I am saying is quite true. Lady Porter should not be in her present position and the sooner there is a change, the better it will be for all concerned.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a by-election is to take place in the Victoria ward of the borough of Westminster. The subject that we are discussing—the rights of housing association and private sector tenants—is becoming an issue in that by-election. That will enable Labour to move very much nearer to taking control of Westminster council.
  Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside any patriotic party motive that I may have for wanting Labour to take control of Westminster, I am quite sure that it would be a godsend for all those who are now suffering in the borough, and who recognise that a change of control of the council would help to relieve their problem.
  For what it is worth, the amendment provides limited protection, requiring a court order before eviction can take place. I repeat that the plight of the homeless should
  348
  occupy all our thoughts. In previous debates I have spoken, like my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, about the homeless people who will be sleeping on the Embankment tonight. They are living in conditions which are more likely to be associated with conditions in a Third world country than with Britain.
  If hon. Members think that I am exaggerating, they should go and look for themselves. We shall probably be here for quite a time and it would do no harm for Conservative Members—I shall join them if they like—to take a walk to see how many of our fellow citizens will be spending a cold November night in cardboard boxes, not because they are drunk or lazy or irresponsible, but because they are in no position to organise their housing; they cannot afford housing in the capital. Some of those people—not all, by any means—have taken the advice of the Government and have come hundreds of miles to seek a job. Whether they can find a job or not, they are certainly not in a position to solve their own housing problems.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman poses an interesting challenge. He compares the First and Third worlds and that is a legitimate comparison; there are 1 million people sleeping on the pavements of Calcutta. However, I challenge him to name any major capital city in the western developed world where a similiar problem does not exist, irrespective of the character or style of the Government in power.
  Mr. Winnick: The obvious comparison is with New York—a city in the most advanced capitalist country. We know the sort of policies that are pursued in the United States and it is understandable that London and New York should have the same homelessness problem. [Interruption.]
  Hon. Members: Stand up and say it.
  Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) would stand up, I would gladly give way.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) may say that in India many more people live in the conditions that I have described. But it is not part of our argument that conditions are the same here as in the Indian subcontinent. I am simply saying that the plight of those to whom my hon. Friends and I have referred—albeit a small minority—is disgraceful. It should not be allowed, and in most cases it is not the fault of the individual. It arises because in places such as London people cannot find a place through a local authority or housing association or obtain a mortgage.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I do not for one moment disagree with the hon. Gentleman's general comments about the undesirability—the tragedy—of homelessness, whether in Calcutta or in London. But the problem has defeated the organisation of man and systems generally. In every major capital city of the world, the problem of homelessness exists and has not been solved.
  Mr. Winnick: I shall not be sarcastic in welcoming the hon. Gentleman into the debate. The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for many years. We differ profoundly on many issues, but we have never been sarcastic to each other. The hon. Gentleman, with whom I completely disagree, has made his point in a courteous

  349
  manner. I am very pleased that he has entered our debate, because hon. Members on both sides of the House should be talking about homelessness.
  I think that the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the problem has defeated all Governments. But the problem of homelessness has become far more acute. The number of homeless people has trebled under the Conservative Government, and the explanation is relatively simple. Some problems are highly complex, but the reason why there are so many more homeless people—and near-homeless people who do not have to sleep in those conditions but who, like my constituents are childless and living with in-laws and may wait years to be offered local authority accommodation—is quite simple. It is because in 1979 the Government made it their deliberate policy to ensure that as few local authority dwellings as possible were built.
  It should be clear to the hon. Member for Havant that reducing public sector building from 109,000 starts in the last full year of the Labour Government to a figure likely to be well under 20,000 this year means that people who cannot resolve their housing problems other than through local authority accommodation are bound to find themselves in the position that we have described.
  Mr. Soley: It is important to deal with an excuse that is often used by Conservative Members. There has always been a problem of homelessness in all societies, usually focused on alcoholics, drug addicts, burnt-out schizophrenics, tramps and people who genuinely wish to be homeless. What is uniquely different about Britain and the United States today—I know of no other modern western country in a similar position—is that the problem of homelessness is increasing without being due to those causes. It is due to mortgage repossessions and so on. Britain and the United States seem unable to cope with the problem, so it is accelerating compared with countries such as those in Scandinavia where the problem has steadily decreased. That is a damning indictment of the British Government and, indeed, the United States Government.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend makes the position quite clear. If the hon. Member for Havant, with whom I disagree but who always puts his points in a courteous manner, will look at the advertisements in the London Standard for rented accommodation—no doubt the situation is similar in his own area—he will find that the smallest flat is likely to cost more than £100 per week, a house between £300 and £400 per week and even a single room between £40 and £50 per week. That is the position in London, and much of the responsibility for it must rest with the Government.
  I hope that the Minister will explain what action the Government intend to take to ensure that local authorities with the will to deal with homelessness, unlike the London borough of Westminster, are in a position to do so. Do the Government intend to shift the responsibility to people in the private sector who will not be able to provide accommodation for the homeless on a permanent basis? The Minister's answer that no survey had been undertaken to discover whether people on housing waiting lists could pay market rents shows that the Housing Bill is not concerned with the homeless or the near-homeless and will in no way resolve the problems of the people most in need.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: It will make them worse.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One way in which the Bill will make things worse is that, whatever the powers against harassment, people with regulated tenancies will be at risk because landlords and property companies will know that, if they can force those tenants out, as Rachman and his associates did the last time there was a Tory rent Act, the accommodation can then be re-let at market rents. The Bill does not apply just to new rented accommodation. All new lets will be subject to market rents.
  Mr. Barry Porter indicated assent.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman nods. I do not know whether he regards that situation as right and proper. He made a brave speech last night and I am happy to give way to him now. If he believes that providing accommodation through the private sector at market rents will do anything to help the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I have referred, I hope that he will explain how. Those who can afford market rents can almost certainly afford a mortgage, so the people most in need will not be able to take advantage of any provision in the Housing Bill.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Boateng: The House will have noted that the Secretary of State has vanished. There has been too much talk of homelessness for his liking. Whenever the subject is mentioned within his hearing, his attention begins to wander, he starts to shuffle and shift in his seat and one can be sure that very soon afterwards he will disappear. He has not disappointed us in that respect today, but he must understand that we intend to bring the House back to the issue of homelessness time and again, so he had better get used to it. If he does not like hearing about homelessness, he will be spending very little time with us in the next few hours.
  In one sense, the Under-Secretary of State should be relieved that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is no longer with us. The Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate—we are glad to welcome him to that position for the first time in a major debate—will appreciate that he is on probation. He has been handed the poisoned chalice of housing.
  Mr. Soley: As an ex-probation officer, I have to point out that the last two Ministers responsible for housing did not even complete a year's probation before being put back inside.
  Mr. Boateng: They have, indeed, suffered various fates. One has been sent on his travels and relegated to the Foreign Office. The other has been sent to the Back Benches where she now languishes so undeservedly. She could certainly tell the Under-Secretary a thing or two about his right hon. Friend who until recently was sitting beside him. The Under-Secretary must surely realise how difficult his present position is.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: In view of their own experiences in the past couple of years, one would expect recent Housing Ministers to have some sympathy with people whose security of tenure is being substantially reduced.
  Mr. Boateng: There is certainly nothing assured about the tenancy currently enjoyed by the Under-Secretary, and we shall do all in our power to make his shorthold as short as possible.
  Having put the Under-Secretary at his ease, I am glad to see him beginning to rise from his torpor. I was starting to get worried and to wonder whether we were going to have a dead duck on our hands, but he is beginning to stir. The problems of the homeless may not rouse him, but reference to his own future clearly does.
  Let us consider the effect of the amendments in the real world rather than in the world interpreted to the other place by the Minister of State. Some of my colleagues, or not so much colleagues as some of those representing the other Opposition parties—the Democrats, SDP Liberals or whatever the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would like to be called—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Liberal.
  Mr. Boateng: We appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. It is not often that we feel sympathy for him, but on this occasion we do.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Get on!
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) from a constantly sedentary position says, "Get on!" We shall indeed get on, but we wish that he would get up. Given his knowledge of the leisure and tourism industries, perhaps he has something to say to those in enforced leisure who are camping out under the arches without being tourists. We will get on in our own time.
  Having said that, I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was a little hard on the noble Lord, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside. That noble gentleman has responsibility for vast estates in Scotland, so he may understand certain homelessness problems because of difficulties in housing his gillies—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) appears to be somewhat bewildered. A gillie is someone who looks after fish. My hon. Friend's knowledge of fish is probably limited to that which turns up in boxes, usually yellow and with a smiling captain on the front. However, there can be real problems with housing gillies in Scotland.
  I have no doubt that the noble Lord will apply his real knowledge of homelessness to his duties as Minister of State. Indeed, there is some sign that he is already doing so, because amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are supposed to reassure housing associations that they will continue to have a role in providing short-term accommodation for the homeless without creating assured tenancies.
  I wish to put a number of important questions to the Under-Secretary about the role of housing associations in providing accommodation for the homeless and about how they will work with local housing authorities to fulfil that role. As has been clearly illustrated by a number of my hon. Friends—and even recognised, in his own way, by one Conservative Member—the problem of homelessness is real. It has landed in the lap of local authorities, which are not being given the resources to enable them adequately to tackle it.
  In addition, when they seek to meet the difficulties of the time by providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation—highly unsatisfactory accommodation for the homeless—they find themselves, as did my authority, caught in a
  352
  double bind because of the rate support grant changes. One day they could rely on a certain amount of rate support grant to pay for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but the next that money was no longer available—it cost my authority £4 million—with all the resulting difficulties in balancing the books and with the very real problem that that presented in fulfilling their legal obligations. Authorities have turned, quite rightly—mine has been doing so for several years, encouraged in rhetoric, but not in fact, by Ministers—to housing associations to meet the challenge of the times and to work together to meet the needs of the homeless.
  Bearing in mind what purports to lie behind amendments Nos. 1 and 4—I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—one would have thought that that would be welcomed with open arms by Ministers; that the Department of the Environment would have hung out the bunting, delighted by the example of a housing association and a local authority working together to meet the needs of the homeless. However, that did not happen—surprise, surprise. I can see a twinkle of recognition beginning to show in the Minister's eyes.
  My local authority entered into an arrangement with what was then the Brent people's housing association for the renovation and restoration of a disused office block in Alperton. It was a major and innovatory project which, one would have thought, would meet with approval because of its use of private capital. Not a single penny of ratepayers' money was to be used to restore that office block for use by homeless families. It was all raised on the private market by a progressive relationship between the housing association, the local authority and the developers, Belway Homes—a first-rate developer with a good track record in that area.
  The project was arranged, the foundation stone laid and work began—but then what happened? The association—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. We must talk some more about homelessness. We must not lose the opportunity to talk about the homeless, the homeless, the homeless, the homeless. We are talking about the homeless and we shall continue to talk about the homeless—
  Winnick: Let us vote on it.
  Mr. Boateng: No, give Jack his jacket and let us engage in an exercise that raised the right hon. Gentleman's consciousness on this issue. What happened to that innovative project to help the homeless, that partnership between the City of London, the local authority and the housing association? The right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet one day and, in another exercise in local authority bashing, changes the rules yet again. Despite the fact that all the money for the project was raised from private investment—something that usually meets with the Government's approval—we have been told that the development at Middlesex house will count against Brent's capital allocation for housing.
  The question that I have put in writing to both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, and to which I still await an answer, is whether the Department of the Environment intends to exempt that project from the impact of the Secretary of State's announcement. If we do not receive that assurance we will have cast-iron proof, if

  353
  proof be needed, that the amendments are an absolute sham and that there is no real intention to enable local authorities and housing associations—
  Mr. Martin Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plight of the homeless is of major concern to the Opposition? If the Secretary of State had not objected to certain planning applications, a fair number of homeless people would have been housed by the builder who wanted to build adjacent to the Secretary of State's house.
  Mr. Boateng: It is almost as though the Secretary of State had invented the NIMBY principle—not in my backyard. There is no doubt that the proper and judicious application of his planning power could enormously assist in combating homelessness.
  If we do not receive an assurance about the Middlesex house project and the difficult position in which Brent now finds itself, we will find it difficult to take at all seriously the Under-Secretary's assurances about the ostensible purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 4.
  Mr. Winnick: Since the Secretary of State is here and much of the debate arising from the amendments has, understandably, been about homelessness, does my hon. Friend know whether the Secretary of State has visited any bread-and-breakfast hostels in his borough or the homeless anywhere else, including those who spend the night on the Embankment, whether covered or uncovered? If the Secretary of State has not, does that not demonstrate once again that he is callously indifferent to the sufferings of those who so concern Labour Members?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Boateng: One wishes that the Secretary of State would emulate Mother Teresa in that respect. She took time off from the streets of Calcutta to visit the homeless on the streets of London. One hopes that the Secretary of State will do the same, but I fear that around the Secretary of State there clings not so much the odour of sanctity as the odour of sulphur. To believe for a moment that he is likely to come to Brent or elsewhere to visit the homeless stretches credibility to an extent that would reduce to credibility even the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanations about how he came to be so seriously misquoted in the Sunday newspapers.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: My hon. Friend's comments may be wholly inaccurate. The short absence of the Secretary of State a few minutes ago may have been so that he could go along the Embankment to Charing Cross to answer our pleas that he should familiarise himself with the problems of the homeless. However, I understand that in reality he went home to water all the little nuclear power stations he has coming up in his garden.
  Mr. Boateng: A likely story. One suspects that it is for a quick fix of environmentally safe nicotine that the Secretary of State departs the Chamber. One does not want to speculate why any hon. Member leaves the Chamber, but in the Secretary of State's case we have our suspicions.
  I am anxious to encourage the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State to give us some assurances tonight about the relevance and impact of the Audit
  354
  Commission's findings on homelessness and the role of local authorities on amendments Nos. 1 and 4. We know that the report has yet to be published. Is it not strange how many important reports these days remain unpublished and that whenever there are constructive suggestions which may embarrass Conservative Members the report remains unpublished?
  We know that the Audit Commission commissioned a report on the responsibilities of housing associations to the homeless. The Under-Secretary of State purports to be concerned about that. The report highlights a growing shortage of homes for rent in both the public and private sectors as the main cause of homelessness rather than the Department of the Environment's view that it is the increasing demand for homes. That may be why the report has never seen the light of day, and I do not think that we are being entirely uncharitable, are we, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Will the Minister consider whether the Audit Commission makes a valid point when it suggests that housing associations should play a greater role in housing the homeless? If that role is to be fulfilled, the matters which amendments Nos. 1 and 4 purport to be concerned with and the subsidies available to local authorities and housing associations for that purpose must be considered.
  Mr. McCartney: I note that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has come into the Chamber. Recently he wrote to the Secretary of State pleading with him not to build new homes in his constituency in case they affected his Conservative majority. Given the hon. and learned Gentleman's serious attitude towards building homes in his constituency, perhaps he will stay and give us his views on how he will solve homelessness, at least in his constituency.
  Mr. Boateng: It would be interesting to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say about that, but I suspect that we may not get a response, let alone a satisfactory one.
  We need to know from the Under-Secretary whether he recognises the need for the Department of the Environment to consider means of enabling authorities to continue developing leasing arrangements with housing associations and the private sector. What steps does he intend to take to give force to the recommendations of the Audit Commission and when will he publish its findings? We await the Minister's response to that and to the important questions that we have asked him.
  Mr. John Fraser: I wish to raise with the Minister a limited point on amendment No. 166.
  Amendment No. 166 amends paragraph 12(1)(h) of schedule 1 to change the definition of a mutual housing association. The amendment removes the cross-reference to the definition of a fully mutual housing association which is contained in part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985. In that Act a distinction is drawn between a fully mutual housing association, which does not have to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, and a co-operative housing association, which is a fully mutual co-operative but must be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.
  The difference is that, in section 15(3) of the Rent Act 1977, a tenancy which is created by a registered housing association—one which is registered under the 1965 Act—is not a protected tenancy for the purposes of the 1977

  355
  Act. If, on the other hand, the co-operative is not registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, the tenancies will be protected. The significance of that is that under this Bill it will not be possible to create a new protected tenancy. When the Bill becomes law, there will be no more protected tenancies. A tenant will have the protection only of an assured tenancy.
  It is true that, even now, a tenancy granted by a co-operative housing association, which is registered under the 1965 Act and with the Housing Corporation, will not be secure. Although the tenants are neither protected nor secure, they have the protection of the overall monitoring and supervision of the Housing Corporation and the detailed protection which exists from membership of an industrial and provident society which is registered under the 1965 Act. If there is oppression, it is possible to make a complaint to the registrar. Thus, if a tenant of a co-operative that is not a secure tenancy made a complaint, the registrar could investigate and the tenant would be afforded some protection as a result of those rights.
  The consequence of the amendments is that, in future, a fully mutual association not incorporated under the 1965 Act will not be capable of creating a protected tenancy or, by virtue of paragraph 12(1)(h) of schedule 1, of creating an assured tenancy. Therefore, a tenant of an unincorporated mutual housing association would have no protection under the Rent Act 1977 or the assured tenancy provisions. That is going too far, and I wonder whether the Minister has made a mistake in the definition of a fully mutual housing association. It is difficult to understand the definition of property given in part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985. I ask the Minister to study that and say that, if necessary, there will be further revisions to the Lords amendments to make it clear that the only exemption from assured tenancies will be those granted by co-operatives registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Amendment No. 1 anables housing associations to create temporary lettings for homeless families, especially where it has been decided that they have made themselves intentionally homeless. We clearly welcome the amendment.
  I did not intend to speak until the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) made a peculiarly insensitive intervention, which is in character, but as he is not present I shall not be ruder than that.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire suggested that the noble Earl of Caithness appreciated the plight of the homeless. I shall not disparage the noble Earl of Caithness because I do not know him and he does not know me. If he visited my advice surgery on a Friday evening, his eyes would be widened in alarm, despair and despondency at the nature of the problems that we face in the east end. The Under-Secretary must understand that Labour Members feel strongly about these problems because it is mainly in our constituencies that they are so concentrated. I should dearly like the Secretary of State to visit my advice surgery, as I have said on a number of occasions. I dealt with 30 housing cases last Friday, with which neither I, housing associations nor the council could deal.
  An enormous crisis is developing in London, but the Government are oblivious to it. I do not know whether
  356
  that is intentional or accidental, but the Secretary of State must experience at first hand what is happening in our capital city and other cities throughout the country.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) mentioned people who intentionally make themselves homeless and young women who become pregnant intentionally to obtain accommodation through the local authority. That happens, and it is the mark of people's despair. Young women think that if they become pregnant they will enhance and improve their chances of being housed by the council. They are sadly mistaken in their action, but it shows how desperate some people are becoming. Regularly, 17 and 18-year-old women with one or two children visit my advice surgery and say, "We have been put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but we thought we would get a council flat. They have put us in Westminster, central London or Romford. We are away from the schools and our family. What can we do?" All that I can do is to console them. One feels powerless and angry about the problems created by Government intransigence and by their not allowing local authorities sufficient funds to build the accommodation that is so desperately needed. It is ludicrous that it costs far more to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation than it does for the local authority to provide accommodation. That is the economics of the madhouse and the social fact of Thatcherism.
  6.45 pm
  Young women are becoming desperate and think that if they get pregnant they will obtain council accommodation. The Minister knows that that is not so, as do we. Before Conservative Members condemn them, throw their hands in the air and say, "It is their fault and responsibility," they should reflect on their problems—in between laughing. I am sure that this is a humorous aspect of the debate to Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) nods his head. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is humorous, there is something wrong with his sense of humour. It seems peculiarly perverted and sick. If he came to my advice surgery, he could see how desperate people are becoming.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: I was interested in the conversation that was taking place here
  Mr. Battle: Have it outside, not in here.
  Mr. Patnick: I do not need any advice from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
  Mr. Banks: It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Hallam listened. On Second Reading debate of the Rate Support Grants Bill, he showed himself to be very interested in the affairs of the London borough of Newham. We were grateful for his interest, but rather bemused about why he should be so interested. We welcome the interest of Conservative Members as long as they draw lessons from it. The lesson to be drawn from having an interest in the London borough of Newham is the enormous housing crises that it is experiencing.
  I hope that, unlike the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary will accept my invitation to visit my Friday night advice surgery. I realise that he probably has his own surgery, so I shall reciprocate by visiting his and giving him the benefit of my advice. If he does not want to accept my reciprocal offer, will he please come to Newham and see at first hand what is going on?
  Mr. Trippier: With the leave of the House. It is nothing short of a tragedy that every time the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) addresses the House he devalues the currency of his contribution by making personal remarks about people inside the Chamber or, on this occasion, outside it. Unlike the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), he is not funny.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who made allegations against my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside that there are three Ministers responsible for housing in the Department of the Environment—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside and myself. It is rich that the allegation was made by a member of the Social and Liberal Democratic party. Each hon. Member of that party, because of its paucity of Members, has at least 27 subjects or responsibilities to cover.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is trying to answer a valid point with an invalid one. On his own notepaper, the noble Earl of Caithness is described as the "Minister for Housing". If the Minister informed himself about my party and our disposition, he would know that we each shadow a Department. This is the end of the Session; I am finishing off the Bill because I started it. I shall then hand over to one person who will shadow the Minister and his colleagues. The work load when one person shadows seven is enormous, but we manage pretty well.
  Mr. Trippier: That is a matter of conjecture, not a statement of fact. I was merely making the point that I should have thought that it was worth one member of the hon. Gentleman's party concentrating solely on housing. At least we have three who are working at it.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked whether the amendments cover private landlords, not merely housing associations. The answer is in the affirmative. There is nothing sinister in believing that there is an important role for private landlords in helping local authorities to discharge their homelessness functions. The amendments will make that possible.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to mortgage repossessions as a percentage of the total number of mortgages granted. The figure remains small. There was a rise in the proportion of building society borrowers in arrears from 0·8 per cent. at the end of 1986 to 0·85 per cent. at the end of 1987, but that was still lower than the June 1987 figure of 0·97 per cent.
  Mr. Battle rose——
  Mr. Trippier: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue. A number of Opposition Members went wide of the specific amendments. I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to the specific amendments, which refer to temporary, not permanent, accommodation.
  The Department is looking closely at arrangements for transfer to ensure that councils recognise their continuing obligations to secure permanent accommodation for the homeless. The amendments relate solely to temporary accommodation. We will have an opportunity on Friday to debate these matters in detail. We have already received four reports of significance on this subject while reviewing
  358
  it and we expect another two, one of which came from the Audit Commission, as the hon. Member for Brent, South suggested.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman release details of his Department's report on homelessness, which I understand has been completed but has not yet been made publicly available, either in time for Friday's debate—that is obviously important—or, at the latest, in time for the beginning of the new Session, before any legislation is announced in the Gracious Speech?
  Mr. Trippier: I can meet the latter point but not the former. We intend to publish that report.
  I return to a specific suggestion made by the Audit Commission on homelessness, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred fleetingly. It has been suggested that we may not wish to see local authorities fulfilling their statutory obligations towards homelessness. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have no evidence that any authorities are in any way not fulfilling their statutory obligations. There is evidence via the Observer article last Sunday that there are a variety of diferent approaches to the way that local authorities deal with homelessness. That is of great concern to me and is looming large in the review before the Department. We must introduce more consistent procedures, and our review will consider that.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) made a preposterous suggestion that the Government intended somehow to privatise the homeless. Local authorities cannot delegate their statutory functions. Local authorities will remain responsible for securing permanent accommodation for the homeless. Much of the thrust of the Bill is to concentrate greater attention on the private sector and specifically more on housing associations. The Government believe that the development of the housing association movement—making houses available to those on lower incomes—will allow local authorities to concentrate much more on homelessness. I do not think that that is a matter of dispute between the two sides of the House.
  Mrs. Mahon: The report from the Department of the Environment, "Large-scale Voluntary Transfers of Local Authority Housing to Private Bodies", which refers to a local housing authority's duty under section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and section 28 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, states:
  "This might be done by entering into contracts with landlords in the area (which might well include the purchasers of the council stock) to provide the necessary accommodation. Similar arrangements would also be acceptable in relation to housing adapted for disabled people or those with special needs."
  Does the Minister agree with that?
  Mr. Trippier: The point to which I was trying to draw the attention of the House was that local authorities are hardly, if ever, criticised by the Opposition for not dealing with the problems of the homeless. It would be ludicrous for me to suggest that all local authorities can be criticised in a general way. The Opposition must accept, if not publicly then privately, that there is a correlation between the number of empty properties, or voids, within a local authority area and the number of people who are homeless.
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: That is not true.
  Mr. Trippier: I did not say "direct" correlation; there must be some correlation. It would be unacceptable for the Opposition to believe that the local authorities must improve the management of the housing stock and turn round the empties within a shorter time to create a number of homes which would then come back on to the market. The Audit Commission said exactly that. It said that if empties were turned around within three weeks—the experience in London is more in line with 11 weeks—it would bring 20,000 net houses back on to the market.
  Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for visiting my constituency and the housing estate on which I live. The hon. Gentleman came across a problem which is the direct opposite of his suggestion. It was an estate which had been refurbished using public sector money and local authority expenditure, and which had new roofs, new heating systems and a new security system. That estate has been boarded up and it may be pulled down. Those refurbished flats cannot find lets. Young homeless people cannot afford the rents because of the changes in housing benefit regulations. Only a fortnight ago the Minister recognised that problem and agreed to come back to me with suggestions on how to deal with it.
  Mr. Trippier: When I agreed to go back—I am prepared to go back to the hon. Gentleman's constituency—it was with a view to the local housing authority taking steps to direct refurbishment more specifically to the needs of those people who need the houses, whether they are homeless or not.
  Mr. Boateng rose——
  Mr. Trippier: I should like to proceed, because I have given way a number of times and am anxious that we should come to the end of our consideration of the Lords amendments.
  It is strange if the Opposition do not accept the correlation between the number of empties, the speed of turnround and the number of homeless. It may sound dramatic, but if I were to say that empty council homes mock the overcrowded and the homeless, quite a number of Opposition Members would agree. If I were to say that council homes are empty through inefficiency, I should have thought that the Opposition would be prepared to accept that, but many do not. The hon. Member for Brent, South does not, so let me deal with him.
  I have a statement which was made by the Labour chairman of the Hackney housing services committee, Councillor Brynley Heaven, who admits that council homes are empty through inefficiency. He continues:
  "Nothing is more important for a housing service than to make the best possible use of all its stock. If we can't show that we are using the homes we already have properly and efficiently, very few people are going to take our case for public investment seriously."
  I could not have put it better myself.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Has the Minister finished his speech?
  Mr. Trippier: Yes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) have the leave of the House to speak again?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  7 pm
  Mr. Soley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I had no intention of speaking again until I heard the Minister's appalling speech. If he carries on in this way, he will go the same way as his two predecessors. He did not even begin to answer the debate, which is about the law. It is not about the subject that will be debated on Friday. The debate on Friday about homelessness will not change the law. The questions that we put to the Minister related to changes in the law, but he totally ignored them.
  The question is not about empty council houses. Every local authority agrees that there is an element of inefficiency in its organisation, just as there is an element of inefficiency in housing associations, but, on the whole, both local authorities and housing associations are efficient. At any one time, only about 2·5 per cent. of their properties are standing empty. All local authorities and housing associations accept that a small element of the 2·5 per cent. of properties standing empty is due to inefficiency; the percentage will differ from one local authority or housing association to another. However, when the Minister suddenly changed the topic, he did not tell us that no less than 5·9 per cent. of Government-owned properties are standing empty.
  Mr. Trippier rose——
  Mr. Soley: Sit down for a moment.
  One in five of all Metropolitan police houses are standing empty. No fewer than 60 to 70 flats at Wormwood Scrubs are standing empty. They have been empty for nine years. Victorian houses with gardens and three, four or five bedrooms as well as flats that belong to the Home Office are to be bulldozed—for what? A car park and landscaping.
  Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: No. The Minister will not open his ears to the problem. When his predecessor, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), went to Southend, which has a Conservative-controlled council, she was told that, because of the Government's economic policies, Southend could not cope with its homelessness. Local authority after local authority, both Tory and Labour, has said the same to him.
  I am not interested in having that argument now; we can have it on Friday. It will be a good opportunity to debate it. If the Minister wants to deal with it, he can deal with it then, but the House wants an answer to this debate.
  Mr. Trippier rose—
  Mr. Soley: I shall give way now to the Minister. I hope that he will deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
  Mr. Trippier: The truth is that it was not I who changed the topic. The hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) changed the topic. They used the debate to ask questions about homelessness. I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question in the first minute of answering the debate, but he was not prepared to listen. He was talking to his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister did not answer my questions. I was listening to him. All he did was answer the first point. In case he does not understand the amendment, as I suspect he does not, may I say that we are looking at Lords amendment No. 4. The Minister did not answer the questions that we asked about that amendment. He just talked about temporary accommodation. He got into difficulties when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). When he said that this has got nothing to do with privatisation, my hon. Friend rightly intervened. All of us have received information from the Department of the Environment; it implies that it is acceptable for local authorities to enter into contracts with private landlords. What does that mean if it does not mean privatising the homeless?
  Mr. Trippier rose——
  Mr. Soley: Before the Minister gets agitated again, let him listen to the problem so that he can begin to answer it. If a local authority is left with no housing, having transferred all of it under the existing or the proposed legislation, it still has a duty under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to house the homeless. That is agreed, although there may be arguments about whether the Minister intends to abandon that Act or to undermine it—
  Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: No; the Minister must listen; he is not even listening properly. [Interruption.] I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker is listening properly, but the Minister is not listening properly.
  If a landlord is the only landlord in the area who is willing to take the homeless and he keeps them in his accommodation for too long, he will then, as a result of the amendment, be under certain legal obligations that he will seek to avoid. Our questions to the Minister dealt with what would happen then to the homeless. Will they be moved to another landlord, and what will they do if there is no other landlord? Will they be given back to the local authority, and what will the local authority do with them if it does not have accommodation for the homeless? What will happen if a local authority, either deliberately or by chance because the landlord does not realise it, allows a family to stay in the accommodation for longer than the period provided for in the amendment?
  The Minister did not address those questions. The nearest he came to it was to say that this was only a temporary problem, but that is not the point. The problem is what will happen when a council puts homeless people into accommodation, the landlord says that they will have to leave and there is no alternative accommodation for them.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister seek the leave of the House to speak again?
  Mr. Trippier: The hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman described could arise, but in the discussions to date, with local authorities wishing to transfer all their stock and housing associations proposing to take over that stock, willingness has been expressed to provide nomination rights to local authorities specifically to house homeless applicants. That willingness would be built into their contractual arrangements.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: The House is being treated with contempt by the Government. During the last few months there have been ministerial changes, procrastination and concessions that were then removed. Tonight a new Under-Secretary of State is not prepared to tell the House what is to happen to thousands of homeless people. It is not good enough for him to say that the Government are discussing with the new landlords the nomination rights that may be agreed between the various parties. We are referring to statutory rights and duties under the law to protect thousands of homeless people.
  This Minister comes from the north-west. I invite him to come to Manchester and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) wants to intervene, he should stand up. His comments on the Bill were a disgrace. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and make a relevant contribution, he should stand up and I would then give way.
  Again we ask the Under-Secretary of State to take point by point the questions that have been asked about amendments Nos. 1 and 4 to the Housing Bill. During the last two hours my hon. Friends have asked question after question about its implications. When we have attended public meetings and have met tenant groups, people have scoffed at the way in which this Government have said not one word about the homeless and what is to happen to them.
  When, eventually, we pin the Government down to discuss homelessness, the Minister will not answer the questions. We need to know what will happen to people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the end of the contract. Will the Minister tell us, and local authorities that have made arrangements with private landlords, what will happen to homeless people at the end of the contract? Will they be moved on and on statutorily from private landlord to private landlord? Are the Government creating an army of homeless people?
  Will the Minister have a chat with the Minister of State and give us the answers to the questions that we have asked during the past two hours?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 5

  SECURITY OF TENURE
  Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 41, at end insert—
  "and, accordingly, the service by the landlord of a notice to quit shall be of no effect in relation to a periodic assured tenancy"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Trippier]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 10 and 169.
  Mr. Battle: I know that Lords amendment No. 6 is a clarifying amendment, but it would mean that a landlord will need a court order to—[Interruption.]
  Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to have two debates in the Chamber at the same time? I cannot hear my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right. Will hon. Members who are not taking part please retire from the Chamber.
  Mr. Battle: The amendment would——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate please either cease speaking or withdraw from the Chamber?
  Mr. Battle: If Lords amendment No. 6 is accepted, a landlord will need a court order to bring an assured periodic tenancy to an end and the notice to quit method will become irrelevant. I should like the Minister to confirm that, rather than merely to move the amendment formally, as there is an assumption that any applicant for a court order will need to have that action preceded by a notice of proceedings for possession. I assume that that principle will he underlined and not undermined. It is a small point, but what I have suggested should be confirmed so that people know where they stand.
  A more serious issue is at stake in Lords amendment No. 8. As the Bill stands, clause 7 ties possession action to grounds for possession. The amendment would break that tie for mortgagees—building societies and banks. It appears that a mortgagee would have an arbitrary right to possession. If the tie is broken, institutional privilege will be built into the Bill, as the county court will be able only to suspend the order to give the occupier time to pay by instalments.
  There is an important principle at stake. Should mortgagees have special treatment and not have to abide by the general rule? Why are mortgagees being exempted from the general rule? Possession should be linked to grounds for possession. We have had enough rows about grounds for possession and the changes in those grounds, but I hope that the Minister will be prepared to say that he will look into the matter because possession in these circumstances means eviction.
  The Minister thought that I spoke about evicted mortgagors earlier, but I did not. He may have mistaken my constituency. I posed questions about the statutory responsibilities of local authorities. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter, as evicted mortgagors represent a high and increasing number of households accepted by local authorities as homeless.
  7.15 pm
  Will the Minister give us an undertaking that mortgage possession grounds cannot be used by business expansion scheme shareholders? We all know that the Budget enabled people to get up £500,000 by setting up a business expansion scheme in private rented property. Will BES shareholders be able to use the clause to get round grounds for possession? The Minister owes it to the House to make that absolutely plain. Will he confirm that BES shareholders will not be classed as mortgagees?
  When speaking about Lords amendment No. 10, the Minister in another place said that the issue would be dealt with by regulation. I would like the Minister to repeat that pledge. As he cannot bring it upon himself to make such provision through a clause in the Bill, will he confirm that regulations will cover the point? If not, we are acting in the dark as we are being asked to support proposals whose impact we do not know.
  Lords amendment No. 169 ensures that landlords cannot use ground 6 to evict a tenant when the tenant was
  364
  not aware that development was a possibility when he or she took on the tenancy. Members of the Committee will remember that ground 6 changes a discretionary provision into a mandatory one. If a landlord intends to redevelop a property—it might be a flat or a room—the landlord can use the ground to get the tenant out.
  We argued in Committee, it was argued in another place and we still argue, that ground 6 is crucial as it provides far wider scope for people to be evicted than does the Bill. It has been generally accepted in landlord and tenant legislation that if a landlord wishes to seek possession on mandatory grounds, the tenant must have been told that that was a possibility when he or she took on the tenancy. It is crucial that we do not break with that practice. We must ensure that tenants do not lose rights.
  Grounds 1 to 5—the other non-fault grounds—require the landlord to ensure that the tenant knows about the possibility of eviction when he or she takes up a tenancy. Ground 6 is the exception. There is no justification for treating it as a special case. The Minister in another place said of landlords that they can use ground 6 only in respect of new tenants who knew that development was a possibility when they took on the tenancies:
  "A landlord who buys a property may not know what his long-term intentions are. It may be clear that there are development possibilities, or it may be an extremely remote prospect. A new tenant who takes on an assured tenancy takes it on against this background. It is one of the grounds for repossession which could be used in certain circumstances. A tenant will make his own assessment of the likelihood of its being used and he can be confident that it cannot be used if there is a possibility of doing the development work around him."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; Vol. 501, c. 402–3.]
  As I cannot question the Earl of Caithness, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to explain how the tenant can have such knowledge in advance. The Earl argued that it is a factor that tenants should take into consideration when considering whether to accept a tenancy, but many take up a tenancy as a result of seeing an advertisement in a newspaper or corner shop window. There is no legal document or legal arrangement. The prospective tenant sees the advertisement and often finds himself knocking on a door during the evening to discuss with the landlord the terms and conditions. The prospective tenant does not arrange for a survey to be prepared and he will not be concerned with the development potential of the flat into which he wishes to move.
  If landlords are able to go to court to obtain possession on development grounds, they will have a powerful instrument with which to evict tenants whom they want to get out of their property. These matters are important and the amendment should not be accepted on the nod. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to assure tenants that ground 6 will not be an instrument of eviction.
  Mr. MacCartney: In my constituency an elderly lady was almost persuaded to leave the house in which she had been living for over 20 years on the ground that the landlord wished to redevelop and improve the property. He began to threaten her when he called for the rent the following week. I found that a planning application had been submitted as the landlord wished to convert the property into a hairdressing shop, and I contacted the local authority's housing aid centre. The lady would have been removed from the property because of the landlord's wish to convert it into commercial premises and to create homelessness. It seems that unscrupulous landlords will be

  365
  in an even stronger position when they come to deal with elderly ladies, for example. They will be able to winkle them out of their property for reasons other than providing homes for the homeless.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. He is saying that landlords could use ground 6 to drive a coach and horses through any justice for tenants. Landlords could gain access to property by the unjustifiable use of the redevelopment ground. I ask the Minister to accept that there should be inserted in the Bill the principle of natural justice. We should make it plain that the redevelopment clause cannot be brought into play after the tenancy has started. It is clear that ground 6 could be used by a landlord as an excuse to get someone out of his property.
  The Earl of Caithness said:
  "The problem lies in trying to draft a provision which is sufficiently comprehensive to cover all the options."
  I submit that the Minister has a responsibility to ensure that the Bill covers all the options. Tenants should not be left in a position of extreme vulnerability. Lord Caithness added:
  "It is in the nature of shady organisations that if you leave a loophole they will find it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; Vol. 501, c. 404.]
  I hope that the Minister will reassure us that ground 6 will not provide a giant loophole through which unscrupulous landlords—I do not mean all landlords—will drive a coach and horses. I concede that properties might be improved, but the improvements will be made at the expense of the tenants who are thrown out of their homes. Landlords will then bring in other tenants, who will be charged higher rents. In such circumstances, landlords will benefit and tenants will lose. In other instances I shall be interested to see whether the redevelopment takes place.
  I invite the Minister to respond to the detailed issues which I have raised, instead of seeking to nod through the amendment formally.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is right to be concerned, especially about Lords amendment No. 169, to which I shall direct my remarks. Ground 6 of schedule 2 is a mandatory ground for possession. It sets out the circumstances in which a landlord can gain possession. It refers to a landlord who
  "intends to demolish or reconstruct … or to carry out substantial works"
  within the property. One of the conditions is that it must be impossible to do that work with the tenant in occupation.
  I am in the fortunate position of being one step ahead of the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Since 3 March, when the issue was raised by me in Committee—at that time the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) was the Minister for Housing and Planning—I have been pursuing an obvious constituency concern. The Minister gave what I consider to be an unsatisfactory reply. The House will be aware that I represent a constituency in which the opportunity for development at great profit is now enormous, especially along the river. I raised the horrendous prospect that new landlords who took over council property under the provisions in part IV might be able to evict tenants by the use of ground 6, which is mandatory.
  366
  The Minister was more than dismissive of my concern. He said:
  "The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made my flesh creep by mentioning the terrifying prospect of developers redeveloping a flat and … using ground 7"—
  which is now ground 6—
  "to turn people out. Fortunately, if we read schedule 2 we will see that that cannot happen when a person has paid a consideration for the reversion of tenancy. Therefore, that spectre need not be raised."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 3 March 1988, c. 1358.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that they should not pass between an hon. Member who is on his feet and the Chair.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I pursued the matter by telephone with the Department over the summer. As I did not receive a reply, I wrote to the newly appointed Minister on 3 November. The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that I am grateful for the reply which I received from Lord Caithness yesterday. First, his reply confirms that I was right to be concerned. It seems that there is a possibility—I do not want to be more alarmist than that—that a legal interpretation could confirm that tenants could be evicted. I refer to the advice which has been given, as I understand it, to Ministers.
  The advice continues:
  "We have looked further at an argument which could affect the picture. This is whether it might in some cases be possible to argue that where, as a result of the consultation procedures, a contract existed between a landlord and tenant prior to transfer, providing for tenancy terms different in major respects from those of the preceding secure tenancy, a court might regard it as a new tenancy taking effect in equity immediately upon acquisition. Our legal advice is that the court would be likely to hold that the tenant was occupying by virtue of the old tenancy rather than a new tenancy in such circumstances. Should a court take the opposite view, however, ground 6 would in principle be available because, on that interpretation, the landlord's interest would have been acquired before the grant of the tenancy."
  To say the least, the legality of the relevant provisions is uncertain. It can be said with justification that the provision could be used by unprincipled or profiteering landlords to evict tenants in the interests of redevelopment. That would be the position of those who had moved in after the property had been taken over. The tenants who transferred to the new landlord might all move or might all be asked to move. They might be replaced by new tenants. On any interpretation, they will have been granted new tenancies since the landlord acquired his interest in the dwelling house.
  There is every reason to raise a spectre of eviction for present council tenants. In an area such as my constituency, accommodation that is now owned by the council could be bought at low cost and redeveloped as luxury accommodation. That would fail entirely to meet the needs of tenants. The redeveloped property would be outside the price range of the people who live in the property now.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will accept that there is enormous anxiety in areas close to city centres, in areas that have been developed, particularly in London where house prices have shot through the roof and land prices have escalated enormously, that such housing would be of interest to landlords who wished to redevelop it for up-market renting or for sale at the earliest opportunity. I was

  367
  grateful to hear that the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside accepted that anxiety and so was willing to give some undertakings through the Under-Secretary to the House.
  7.30 pm
  The Minister, in his reply to me dated 8 November, said:
  "I am happy to give you an assurance that we shall discuss with the Housing Corporation ways of ensuring through their use of undertakings attached to Tenants' Choice applicants' approvals that applicants will be required not to use the Ground even should the Courts rule that it was in principle available."
  That is a clarification and a concession, and it is a substantial improvement.
  First, will the Under-Secretary confirm that the Department of the Environment will ensure that the Housing Corporation makes that requirement in relation to tenants who are resident at the time of transfer and remain in properties and where all tenants are new since transfer? Secondly, will the Minister allay the substantial fears that exist which have in no way been inflamed by any comments that I have made? I have sought to explain that I was seeking clarification, that the Minister had assured me that there was no risk but that, since that did not appear certain to me as a matter of law, I would pursue the matter with the Department of the Environment.
  Will the Minister allay the fears of many elderly and low-income tenants that any tenants'-choice-acquiring landlord will never be able to use that ground in any circumstances whatever? We need that assurance. It must be categorical. If it can be given, that will be a substantial improvement in an area about which tenants have been enormously worried.
  Mr. Trippier: I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) accepts entirely from me that that was the sole intention in framing the legislation. There was one part that the hon. Gentleman missed out—I know, not intentionally—of the letter sent to him by my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside that I must stress and put on the record. We were satisfied that if the matter were taken to the courts they would uphold the decision. The difficulty on which the hon. Gentleman has focused is that there is no absolute legal certainty in the matter. Therefore, we are attaching belt and braces to this matter and I can give him the latter assurance that he sought.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) asked several detailed questions. The House will know that the amendments deal with the serving of notice to bring a tenancy to an end and the grounds on which possession may be sought.
  Amendment No. 6 clarifies clause 5 and provides that a landlord may only bring an assured tenancy to an end by obtaining a court order. The amendment makes it clear that a separate notice to quit is not needed and that if it were served it would not bring the tenancy to an end.
  Amendment No. 8, which is a technical amendment, provides that where an assured tenant has mortgaged his tenancy, as could happen with a shared ownership lease for example, and defaults on his mortgage, the provisions of part I will not affect the right of the mortgagee to repossession of the property.
  Amendment No. 9 is a consequential amendment following the change made to the suitable alternative accommodation ground for possession. When the ground
  368
  was switched from part I to part II of schedule 2 as a consequence of representations by Opposition Members, the court was inadvertently given power to order possession under that ground during the course of a fixed-term tenancy. That would be inequitable, and the amendment puts the position right.
  Amendment No. 10 makes it a requirement that the particulars of the ground on which the landlord is seeking possession should be set out in the notice. It was always our intention that the particulars should be set out in full in the prescribed form, but, again following Opposition concern in another place, the amendment makes it plain that that will be the case. It responds to those overtures.
  Mr. Battle: Will the Minister make it plain, because it is not clear from his reply, whether business expansion scheme shareholders will be exempt from the grounds for possession? Will they have the mortgagee's privilege of bypassing the grounds for possession?
  Mr. Trippier: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understands the business expansion scheme, but the shareholders in that scheme are far back from those who are proposed landlords. The hon. Gentleman may not understand how the BES works. I do not say that in any way discourteously.
  I do not regard the point raised by the hon. Gentleman as a problem. The assurance that he seeks with regard to shareholders is not relevant. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was talking about a landlord. A landlord of a tenancy under the business expansion scheme will have to obtain possession in the normal way. The shareholders are far back. Many individuals will be investing money, as the hon. Gentleman probably understands. Therefore, the matter does not arise. We are talking about literally hundreds of people.
  Amendment No. 169 relates to the development ground for possession—ground 6. The ground does not apply where the landlord has purchased the property with a sitting tenant. if that sitting tenant were a Rent Act tenant, there could be an assured tenancy by succession stemming from that tenancy.
  Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 are useful clarificatory or technical amendments and, as I have said, amendment No. 169 is a helpful extension of the protection of tenants, for which Opposition Members have asked.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Hughes: As the Minister will have expected, I am grateful for his comments. However, he did not deal with one important matter, on which he may wish to take advice.
  When a matter is dealt with by way of Government policy or undertaking, any court interpreting statute can look only at the face of the statute. Courts are not allowed, as a matter of law, to take into account debates in the House. That principle of legal interpretation is not used in this country, although it is used elsewhere. Will the Minister assure us that his assertion and assurance will apply as a matter of law as well as a matter of policy?
  I am aware that the Minister can determine the rules and parameters within which the Housing Corporation works. I am also aware that it is the intention, as he has

  369
  clarified, that the ground should not be used. The problem is, as he will realise, that in a legal context he and his colleagues and the Housing Corporation will not be parties. A landlord who had acquired the property would be taking a tenant who was in the property to court, using a ground in statute. That is the perfectly reasonable justification for a question that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. I hope that he will say that, as a matter of statute, if it is not certain now, the matter will be clarified in the early housing legislation expected after the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Trippier: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks on the latter point. As I said earlier, this is not a matter of law, and therefore not a matter of statute. However, I am not a qualified lawyer, so I shall take advice. The hon. Gentleman may have raised the question because he suspects that it is not. The reply that he has received from my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside made that abundantly clear. Otherwise, the direction that we are seeking to give to the Housing Corporation would be unnecessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 17

  SUCCESSION TO ASSURED PERIODIC TENANCY BY SPOUSE
  Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 13, line 11, at end insert
  "or
  (c) he became entitled to the tenancy as mentioned in section 39(5) below."
  Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that clause 17 establishes the right of succession to an assured tenancy for the spouse or common law spouse of a deceased assured tenant. The Bill in its original form did not provide a right of succession to an assured tenancy, but after strong representations from Opposition Members we agreed to provide a right of succession for the spouse of an assured tenant, as for someone who was living with the assured tenant as man and wife. However, it is a single right of succession for the spouse alone.
  This amendment blocks a small loophole in the succession provision. Most new tenancies granted after commencement will be new assured tenancies—the results of new tenancy agreements. However, some tenants will become assured tenants by succession. They will be family members who have succeeded to a Rent Act tenancy. When a Rent Act tenant dies, his spouse will have the right to succeed to his Rent Act tenancy, and when that spouse dies, a family member who has fulfilled the residence qualification will have the right to succeed to an assured tenancy. That family member could then marry and, without this amendment, her or his husband or wife could succeed to the tenancy. So the property would have seen three successions in which the landlord had no say.
  If the landlord is willing to grant an assured tenancy voluntarily to the spouse of the family member, that is an entirely different matter. However, we do not want to perpetuate successions over which the landlord has no
  370
  control. This is a small amendment to ensure consistency in our succession provisions, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This may be a small amendment, and one that closes a loophole, but the Minister will be aware that this provision was the subject of controversy in Committee. This clause deals with succession rights, and closing the loophole will take away a right that currently exists. It will be of harm specifically to single and elderly single people. There was opposition from all parts of the Committee upstairs to reducing succession rights. This amendment is a backward step, and I greatly regret that the Minister is asking us to agree with the Lords amendment.
  The noble Earl who introduced this amendment in another place made it clear that he had heard it argued strongly that tenants would not automatically negotiate joint tenancies for a husband and wife, and therefore that great hardship would be caused to widows if there was no automatic succession.
  I shall give the Minister a simple and obvious example of the way in which this change will remove the assurance of security. It is the example of an elderly mother of 85 living with her son, aged 60, and daughter-in-law, aged 55, who move in to the mother's home specifically to look after her. When the mother, as a Rent Act tenant, dies, the son could succeed to the assured tenancy, but when he dies his wife cannot do so. By that time, the wife might be elderly and well past pensionable age, yet she will be prevented from succeeding to the tenancy by this amendment.
  The arguments are known to the Government; they put the arguments themselves in another place. It is an unsatisfactory element of this Bill that succession will be denied to those who are vulnerable and need the security of their homes.
  The Government take the philosophical view that three successive tenancies are bad. They are not. I can think of many constituents, as can other right hon. and hon. Members, who will suffer greatly from this amendment. My hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment asking the House to disapprove of it, but it has not been taken. However, I give notice that we shall oppose Lords amendment No. 11 if it is put to the House later this evening.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: We share the view of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that this is not just a small, technical amendment, as described by the Minister. It touches on a major point of principle that was debated at great length in Committee and that divided this House on a number of occasions during earlier stages of the Bill.
  The Minister says that the Government do not want three successions without the landlord having any control. That is an insult to the tenants of private landlords. Under this amendment, the relative of a tenant who dies will not be allowed to continue living in what has become home. That is what we are talking about.
  Mr. Trippier: No, we are not.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Roberts: The Minister, from a sedentary position, contradicts me; let us consider the facts. Under this amendment, when a person succeeds to a Rent Act

  371
  tenancy, the spouse will have no right of succession—even though clause 17 gives a right of succession to spouses of assured tenants. If someone has lived somewhere for longer than two years, I would call that his home. Thus, for a relative to be unable to succeed in such circumstances is to deny to him the right to continue living in his own home.
  It used to be the case that relatives entitled to succeed needed a six-month residential qualification. Under the Housing Act 1985, the qualification period was reduced to one year, but under this legislation, there will be a two-year residential qualification. Is the Minister saying that, if a person has lived somewhere for two years, that still cannot be deemed to be his home? I say that it certainly is.
  In establishing the concept of the assured tenancy—in the past, we have made it clear that the only assured thing about these tenancies, unlike those of the 1980 Act, is that there is nothing assured about them and that they are very insecure—the Government go on to take away what limited rights relatives and spouses have. The whole idea behind this legislation and of destroying security of tenure among the tenants of private landlords, is that private landlords will more easily be able to get vacant possession of their property. That is what the Government argue.
  That in itself will be a major factor in increasing homelessness. I do not want another debate on that aspect because we dealt with the matter of homelessness in the first group of amendments. Nevertheless, it is wrong for Conservative Members to claim that the main cause of homelessness in Britain is the same as in every other country in the western world, that it is a problem that will never go away, and that it has nothing to do with housing policies but is a social problem. This is an example of Government legislation that could, by taking away security of tenure, increase the number of people presenting themselves as homeless.
  Under Lords amendment No. 11, if an assured tenant dies, the relatives living in the same house can be made homeless. If relatives are not allowed to succeed to the tenancy, the individuals or families will have to go to the local authority and present themselves as homeless. They will not have been made so intentionally but will have been put in that dilemma by the Government's legislation. Let not the Minister say that we are simply blocking a small loophole. This is a major issue of principle relating directly to our debates on succession. We believe that anyone who lives for a reasonable time in the tenancy of a private landlord should have succession when the tenant dies.
  There was such a case some time ago in my constituency. Two elderly sisters had lived together for most of their lives in a terraced property, renting from a private landlord. The sister who died first was the tenant. The other sister, who had been there for 40 or 50 years, was going to be refused the right of succession. Only when we invited Granada Television to come along and interview the sisters did the landlord decide to change his mind—or her mind; it was difficult to ascertain exactly who the landlord was, although we knew the identity of the agents.
  It would have destroyed that elderly person to have to accept that the house that had been her home for 30 or 40 years would be taken away, and this little "technical" amendment will result in many such cases.
  Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I was not in the Chamber for all his speech. I am sure that he has no wish to mislead the
  372
  House now any more than he did when he cited similar examples in Committee. But he has just reminded the House that the two sisters had lived together for 30 or 40 years—he said 50 years first and then amended that. He will acknowledge from his experience of housing law that those two sisters would have been controlled and then regulated tenants, with all the security of the courts. The younger sister, being a direct relation of the deceased, would have succeeded to the tenancy.
  Mr. Roberts: They did not have that kind of tenancy. If they had, we would have succeeded when we put the lawyers on to the case, without having to involve Granada Television.
  What the Minister describes as the right of relatives to inherit tenancies was the reasonably fair position berore the present legislation was presented. The Government must admit that their avowed purpose is to make it more difficult for tenants to remain if landlords want to evict them. The Government argue as a matter of principle that one of the reasons for the lack of an adequate supply of private rented accommodation is that landlords cannot get rid of tenants easily enough, and cannot obtain vacant possession when they want it.
  The amendment is intended to enable landlords to obtain vacant possession when someone dies who has succeeded to an assured tenancy following the death of a spouse who was a Rent Act tenant. All relatives from that time would cease to have tenancy rights. The Minister admitted that he would make the third succession and any beyond it illegal if the landlord did not want to grant succession.
  We think that that is wrong, and that people should have security of tenure whether they are tenants or not, as long as it is clear that the accommodation has been their main home for a reasonable period. We thought that six months was reasonable. We thought that a year, under the 1985 Act, was reasonable. Now the period is two years, and even so the Government in their miserable amendment are trying to take away tenants' rights and to increase the possibility of homelessness. The Minister says that they are trying to close a loophole. We say that they are trying to destroy the major principle of security of tenure.
  Mr. Trippier rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the Minister the leave of the House to speak again?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Trippier: I ask the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) very seriously to read Hansard tomorrow. When he came out with his example, I was convinced that the person to whom he referred could succeed to the tenancy. I subsequently received advice from the Box that confirmed that I was right. As I understood it, the wife in his example was the tenant. The son who succeeded to the Rent Act tenancy would he the first successor. The hon. Gentleman said that the daughter-in-law could not succeed to the tenancy. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that that person could succeed as a second successor.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may well be right. It depends on the status of the original tenant. If the mother

  373
  had inherited the tenancy from her husband, for example, her carers who moved in might find themselves without succession rights.
  Mr. Trippier: I shall not delay the House for much longer, and I have no doubt that there will be an exchange of correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
  This is the point that I wished to make to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). If there had been two successions to a Rent Act tenancy—which is what the hon. Gentleman was talking about; he was talking about depriving people of rights that they already had—and the second successor was a family member, the family member's spouse would have no automatic right of succession. There has never been such a right. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to give the House the impression that we are taking away rights that already exist.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I assure the Minister that I would not suggest that any rights were being given that did not already exist, and I am sure that what he says is correct. But let us clarify the matter, because there was some confusion in the Minister's exchanges with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). When a wife or husband succeeds to an assured tenancy from a Rent Act tenant who dies, the next of kin—even if there has been a remarriage and there is another spouse—will not inherit that tenancy under the amendment.
  Mr. Trippier: I could not have made this clearer than I did in my opening remarks. I gave my own example—we have had several since. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wishes to divide the House, but I seriously ask whether he knows on what he is dividing it. We are not depleting the current legislation or removing tenants' rights.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister must remember what his colleagues said in the Lords—that the amendment was to close a loophole because it was not Government policy to allow three people to succeed in a row. Loopholes have been closed elsewhere, but not in this context. At present there is a guarantee of security where the tenant was protected under the Rent Act. We want to sustain that, and the Minister wants to take it away. That is a very good reason for dividing, if the Minister persists in his aim.
  Mr. Trippier: We do not want to take the right away. I suggest that it does not exist, but the hon. Gentleman is right to divide the House if that is what he believes. We are not prepared to extend the legislation to cover a third succession.
  Mr. Roberts: Does clause 17 give the right of succession for spouses of assured tenancies, except where it is the third succession? Is that the case or not?
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 185.

  Division No. 480]

  [7.59 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Allason, Rupert

  Ashby, David

  Amos, Alan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Arbuthnot, James

  Atkins, Robert

  374

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Irvine, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Irving, Charles

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jack, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Jackson, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Janman, Tim

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Boswell, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Bowis, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Brazier, Julian

  Key, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Kilfedder, James

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Knapman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Burt, Alistair

  Knowles, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Lang, Ian

  Butler, Chris

  Latham, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lord, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Couchman, James

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Durant, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Madel, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mans, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maples, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gow, Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hannam, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heddle, John

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hill, James

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Price, Sir David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  375

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rost, Peter

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Trippier, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Stevens, Lewis

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stokes, Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Alistair

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Battle, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beggs, Roy

  Fearn, Ronald

  Beith, A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunkett, David

  Foster, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Fraser, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Buchan, Norman

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buckley, George J.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Gould, Bryan

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clay, Bob

  Haynes, Frank

  Clelland, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Holland, Stuart

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Geraint

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  376

  John, Brynmor

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Redmond, Martin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Richardson, Jo

  Kennedy, Charles

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Robertson, George

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rogers, Allan

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leighton, Ron

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wall, Pat

  Morley, Elliott

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce and

  Prescott, John

  Mrs. Ray Michie.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20

  ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
  Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 26, after "is" insert "a fixed term tenancy"
  8.15 pm
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17.
  Mr. Tony Banks: These amendments relate to assured shorthold tenancies—a difficult phrase to say if one has paid a visit to the Strangers' Bar, but I have not so far this evening and will not for some time yet.
  The Government know that we are very concerned about assured shorthold tenancies because we believe that this form of letting will destroy security of tenure in the private rented sector. There is a play on words here. Heard the first time, "assured tenancy" sounds like something

  377
  that might enhance the rights of tenants—a good thing; but the Government have perverted the English language, and assured tenancy actually diminishes certain rights.
  These amendments tighten up the definition of assured shorthold tenancies, so I welcome them because they will ensure that such tenancies can be created only in extremely limited circumstances, when landlords and tenants are fully aware of the implications of the bargains they are about to strike. We discussed that at length in Committee but could not persuade the Government of our case. Fortunately, these Lords amendments provide what we sought then.
  Lords amendment No. 12 includes in its definition the words "a fixed term tenancy", which clarify what an assured shorthold letting for a short period is, the minimum being six months.
  Lords amendment No. 13 deals with the contractual terms of a tenancy. We are pleased to agree with it, as it provides that, if a landlord inserts a break clause into a shorthold agreement, the tenancy cannot be an assured shorthold tenancy. We are concerned that the wholesale creation of assured shorthold tenancies will lead to the destruction of security of tenure for private tenants.
  The Bill creates two new forms of tenure—assured tenancy and assured shorthold tenancy. The first, we are told, will give some security with market rents; the other provides less security, but with correspondingly lower rents. The point that the Government have conspicuously failed to answer relates to assured shorthold tenancies. If a tenancy is for six months, how is the tenant to enforce his right to a reduced rent? The Government have told us repeatedly that landlords do not always want to twist tenants, and have always assumed that tenant and landlord come together as equally powerful parties. That might be so in legal terms under this legislation, but the reality is quite different.
  We all know many examples of tenants' rights being ignored by landlords. Obviously, the former can go to law to try to pursue their rights, but the people we are talking about often do not possess the economic wherewithal to do that and may not understand what their rights are. That is why we have always tried to load the balance in favour of the tenant. That does not necessarily make us an anti-private landlord party, but experience and our constituency caseloads show us that things must be weighted in favour of the tenant.
  There are far more private landlords who are crooked and unfair twisters than there are tenants who are prepared to dupe landlords. I agree that such cases happen from time to time, but they are rare. In the great preponderance of constituency casework of Labour Members—and, I suspect, of Conservative members in inner cities as well—it is the tenant who is at a disadvantage and the landlord who is deceiving and tricking the tenant. That is why we always want to be seen as the party of the tenant—whether the private or the council tenant. We are proud to be the party of the tenant and we are not prepared to accept the Government's criticism that we are wholly one-sided, because we speak from experience.
  If the tenant asks for a reduced rent or applies to a rent assessment committee, the landlord's obvious response will be, "OK, you can get out at the end of your tenancy."
  378
  That is true of the other rights that tenants have. What about repairs, for example? Hon. Members will know of cases in which tenants have asked for repairs to be done but the landlord has ignored them. The roof may be leaking, for example. How do the Government think—
  Mr. Heddle: I rise to ask whether it is reasonable for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has been in the House for many years, to be reading the daily newspaper rather than listening to the words of so-called wisdom of his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?
  Mr. Winnick: I can show you, Mr. Speaker, or the Clerk that I have been making marks of rented accommodation that is available in London and the rents payable. I shall use that information at a later stage. I have been marking page 38 of the Evening Standard, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, and I consider it to be part of my responsibility to do so.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman should apologise.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is probably just about in order.
  Mr. Banks: I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's explanation, because no one would read the Evening Standard for pleasure. He can be paying it such close attention only in the interests of research—although I must ask him who won the 3·30. I know that my hon. Friend is more than capable of carrying out research and listening to me at the same time—and he can probably carry out a number of other bodily functions at the same time.
  I was talking about the case of a tenant asking a landlord to deal with a property that is in a state of disrepair, with, for example, a leaking roof. What is the tenant's position in such a case? Although there has been much criticism of local authorities because of the state of disrepair of some council properties, the fact cannot be avoided that the greater disrepair and dilapidation has been in the private sector. Conservative Members know that that is true. The most distressing cases that one deals with at constituency advice centres are those that occur in the privately rented sector.
  Mr. Heddle: The hon. Gentleman has just reminded the House that his party is the party of the tenant. Will he confirm that it is in the private sector that the tenant has the rights and protection of the law against disrepair and that it was this Government who recently introduced the same rights for tenants with local authority landlords to protect them in cases where properties have been allowed to fall into disrepair?
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman's comments fly in the face of reality. I realise that he may be more interested in what my hon. Friends are doing than in listening to what I am saying. I was saying that, although rights will be given under the Bill, and although rights exist under other legislation, many tenants do not have the economic capacity or general awareness to pursue those rights. That is the point that I am trying to make. That is why, throughout the passage of the Bill, it has been the Labour party which has tried to tilt the balance in favour of the

  379
  tenant, to make the situation as straightforward and simple as possible and to ensure that the tenant has many rights without having to resort to the law.
  Ms. Primarolo: Does my hon. Friend agree that if a tenant in the private sector withholds rent to secure repairs, that tenant will fall foul of a possession order, under the mandatory provisions of the Bill? What the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) has just said about protection on repairs is a load of rubbish. That protection will be superseded by the mandatory eviction provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is more direct in her language than I am, but I do not dissociate myself from her words. She has made a good point. A court will have no discretion over eviction for rent arrears. We shall debate later the provisions that deal with the right to buy, which include a scheme whereby tenants who want to buy their homes from the council can hold money back, if there is a delay, and put it into a fund that will effectively qualify as their mortgage payment in the future. The Government want to load everything against the local authority. They see the local authority as the enemy of the people.
  Mr. Trippier: That is rubbish.
  Mr. Banks: I do not know how much attention the Minister has paid to the Bill at various stages. We have found that not only the Bill but the general drift of legislation is based on the assumption that the local authority is the enemy of the people. I do not want to speak on a subject outside the scope of the amendment, but, as we are the party of the tenant, we consider the Government to be the enemy of the local authority. In their eyes, the local authorities can do nothing right. The House knows that taking all housing away from local authorities is on the Government's agenda. I ask Conservative Members to speak if that is not true. I see that no Conservative Members have risen to speak, so it is obviously true. We have discovered another item on the hidden agenda.
  Mr. Soley: The previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who was sacked—although not for this reason—said that the Government took the view that councils should no longer be providing accommodation. That was also implied in the White Paper in October 1987, and other Ministers have said the same in Committee. They believe that local authorities have no role as providers of housing.
  Mr. Banks: Too few people in this country know of the true intentions of the Conservative Government. Labour Members who have attended public meetings about the Bill have noticed a large number of elderly tenants there. We do our best to explain fairly and impartially what the Government seek to achieve. Unfortunately, that seems to frighten the audience more then if we made things up as we went along.
  Many elderly tenants come to the meetings because they can remember what private landlords were like and they know that it was the local authority who removed them from the ghettoes of the private landlord. Even the worst local authority is infinitely better than the worst private landlord. That is why people are worried about the
  380
  Bill, which has nothing to do with the provision of additional housing but everything to do with trying to take the provision of housing away from local authorities.
  Mr. McCartney: I have a copy of the Government's discussion paper on housing in rural areas which was issued on 5 July 1988. Paragraph 1 says:
  "Local authorities would increasingly act as enablers who would facilitate the provision of new housing by others".
  Paragraph 3(1) says that there is a need to
  "extend the role of the housing associations in rural areas so that they can take over from local authorities some of their responsibility as the providers of new housing for rent".
  The Government made it clear during the summer that they would remove local authorities from their role as providers of housing.
  Mr. Banks: I accept the point that my hon. Friend has made, which we are diving home time and again. I only wish that more people outside the House, such as the council tenants who sit reading The Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express and The Star could read in those newspapers about what the Bill really intends, rather than reading about the latest fashion that has been draped over Princess Diana.
  Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend referred to the elderly. I recently held a surgery in the town centre of Halifax where two out of three council tenants are elderly people. My hon. Friend's point about the past was repeatedly emphasised by elderly people who said, "Please tell the younger ones about the private landlords." The experiences that they related to me were quite shocking. I ask the Minister to consider the experiences of those elderly people, who do not want a return to the bad old days of the private landlord.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Her experiences echo mine. Younger council tenants, and younger people generally, may not be aware of those circumstances. They have had their minds dulled by the propaganda of the Right-wing press and have not had the experiences that their mothers, fathers and grandparents have had.
  People are worried about the Bill because they do not have the Government's confidence and faith in private landlords. The Government seem to have infinite faith in the ability of private landlords not only to meet our housing shortage but to do the decent thing by tenants. I do not know how they can maintain that position, because it seems to fly in the face of experience.
  Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman returned to the matter that we are discussing, he would discover that amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16 are designed to assist the tenant. They meet points raised by the Opposition either in the House or in another place to which we have responded positively. We have not heard much about that.
  Mr. Banks: I made it quite clear to the Minister that I was speaking in favour of the amendments. I said at the beginning that we welcomed the fact that the Government gave way in the end; of course we welcome it. However, we need to spell out the implications of the Bill and the problems of tenants because we are the party of the tenants.
  Mr. Trippier: What arrogance.
  Mr. Banks: If the Minister feels miffed because I have not given him sufficient credit I shall gladly do so now. I shall give him all the credit he wants. I only wish that he had been so welcoming of our other proposals.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend should not give the Minister too much credit. To be fair, this Minister was not in the job at the time, but Ministers dealing with the Bill in Committee consistently refused to give genuine safeguards against serious harassment. Every organisation with experience of housing knows that the dangers of abuse are far greater under the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) knows that, too, especially in relation to the business expansion scheme—about which he has anxieties—which will also be covered by the Bill. Although the Government moved a little way when pushed by the Lords, the amendments go nowhere near solving the problems that my hon. Friend describes.
  Mr. Banks: I just thought that the Minister was getting a little upset. As he is a new boy in this job, I do not want to get him too upset too early. There will be plenty of time to get him really upset. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will realise that my welcome was not excessive. Of course we welcome the amendments. We are very reasonable people. Reason is on our side, and it would be unreasonable and churlish of us not to admit that the Government have given way to pressure from the Opposition. It is the role of the Opposition to exert such pressure.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) said that tenants had rights under the Bill. I was referring to the tenant who finds that the property in which he or she lives is in a state of disrepair and who goes to the landlord to ask him what he proposes to do about it. The landlord can say, "I shall kick you out of the property and get myself another shorthold tenant straight away." That can happen under the Bill.
  If the tenant is so bold as to complain about the state of repair of the property and to seek to get the landlord's obligation to undertake repairs enforced, what progress is he or she likely to make? The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire knows better than I how long it takes to get a county court hearing for a case of breach of covenant of repairing obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Would the hon. Gentleman care to hazard a guess? Once a survey has been carried out and an application made for a hearing, months of delay may follow. In my constituency, tenants with excellent solicitors have not been able to obtain a full hearing until 18 months after their original complaint. That is crazy. The tenant may have rights, but unless those rights can be speedily, cheaply and easily enforced, they do not amount to much. Therefore, although I welcome the amendments, they beg an awful lot of questions.
  Lords amendment No. 13 is welcome because it provides that a clause in the contract terminated before the end of the initial six-month period would ensure that the tenancy would not be an assured shorthold tenancy. Lords amendment No. 14 is less welcome, because the Government appear to be displaying paranoia that is unnecessary in the circumstances. They appear to be worrying about assured shorthold tenancies that have come to an end during their term either because the tenant has left or because some other change has taken place.
  382
  They are ensuring that if the tenancy starts again it remains an assured shorthold tenancy and does not become a full-blown assured tenancy.
  Amendment No. 15 emphasises the distinction, so that when the original tenancy comes to an end, an assured tenancy is not created but the new tenancy is still an assured shorthold tenancy. Why does the Minister feel so strongly about those two amendments? I have been knocking around with the Bill for some time, but I still find some aspects difficult to understand.
  Amendment No. 16 seems to play word games, and I cannot see the point of it or of amendment No. 17. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly what amendments Nos. l6 and 17 achieve. I am sure that he has an excellent brief from his civil servants and I shall be pleased to hear precisely what the two amendments do.
  Opposition Members would not wish to be churlish. We are pleased that our arguments have been listened to, and even if the amendments do not go half as far as we would want them to, we are prepared to accept them.
  Mr. Trippier: It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that he does not intend to divide the House. I shall briefly address the questions that he puts.
  Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16 are designed to plug the loophole in the shorthold procedure which could work to the disadvantage of tenants. Clause 20 provides that, to qualify as an assured shorthold tenancy, a tenancy must be granted for a certain term of at least six months. We do not want landlords to be able to circumvent that requirement by granting six-months tenancies with a power to determine the tenancy—in other words, bring it to an end—at some point before the minimum six-months term is up.
  Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17 are aimed at the case where an assured shorthold tenancy ceases at some time during its life to qualify as an assured tenancy because the tenant no longer occupies the property as his principal home.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has given the impression that Ministers—specifically, those in the Department of the Environment—are not in favour of local government or of housing in any way being managed by local authorities. The vast majority of Ministers in the Department of the Environment come from a background of local government and we are very strongly in favour of local government where it is efficiently run. The sad fact is that in many cases it is not efficiently run, as I tried to illustrate in an earlier debate.
  Mr. Soley: In view of what has been said by the Minister's predecessors, that is an important point. Is the Minister saying that he wants local authorities to continue to have a role in the provision of housing into the future, and if so, that the Government have given up their attempt to make local authorities get rid of all their properties? Does he want local authorities to be providers or only enablers as in the terms of the White Paper? That was the distinction drawn. What is the Minister saying to the House?
  Mr. Trippier: I am saying—and the Government have said and other Ministers have said—that we want local authorities to be principally enablers.
  Mr. Soley: But not entirely?
  Mr. Trippier: Principally enablers. It is stretching credulity to breaking point for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to suggest for one moment that the whole of the public housing stock run by local authorities will be transformed and transferred within very short order. I have already touched on that point. There is a balance to be achieved. I have already said in a previous debate that I think that there is an important role for local authorities to deal with the problem of homelessness. The more we can encourage the private sector, principally housing associations, to concentrate on those low-cost housing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West sneers at that.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am not sneering—I am smiling.
  Mr. Trippier: You were smiling and sneering. The same question is given to this side of the House by your hon. Friends as to what they would feel about housing—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sneering at anything.
  Mr. Trippier: Therefore, if there is a role in relation to homelessness for local authorities and housing associations, it is clear that if we are successful with this Bill in promoting private homes for rent through housing associations it will allow local authorities to concentrate on those people who are homeless and to give greater attention to that sector. I shall repeat that point again on Friday.
  Mr. Soley: I do not wish to stray out of order, Mr. Speaker. The debate has been about the ability of local authorities and other people to cope with aspects such as homelessness in the past, but we have passed through that debate and this debate has been about certain aspects of security for tenants. The Minister, however, in his remarks has indicated a very different position from that indicated by other Ministers both recently and in the more distant past. I am anxious to get the Government to clarify what they are saying.
  I noticed that, on my intervention, the Minister slightly altered his words to say that he did not expect local authorities to get rid of housing in short order—I think that that was his phrase—but may I take it that the Minister recognises and accepts that the aim of the Government as laid down by previous Ministers is to get rid of all provision of council housing when they can? That has been stated in so many words and sometimes very explicitly by the hon. Gentleman's predecessors. He seemed to move away from it just now and then in his closing remarks he seemed to move back again.
  May we have the position made clear? Is the hon. Gentleman of the view that at some date in the future, perhaps a long time in the future, the view of the Government is that local authorities will not be providers of housing at all? Or is he saying that there will always be a role for local authorities in providing housing? All the evidence from the Government so far—their actions, their statements on the record here and the written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—is that the Government took the view that local authorities could give it all up sooner or later. The Minister moved away from that and then waffled a bit. I want to know what his position is.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman and I have been Members of the House for long enough to know precisely
  384
  the game that he is seeking to play. I could not make it any clearer to him. Perhaps he would care to consider Hansard tomorrow and see what I have said. I have made it absolutely crystal clear. In contrast to that of the Labour party, the Government's policy for the next Parliament is stated clearly in the Conservative manifesto. Therefore, all that is said on housing—I re-read it this morning—could not have been clearer. We are exposing local authorities in their control of housing to competition, and providing the opportunity through this legislation for tenants to give their local council the sack. The hon. Member for Hammersmith does not like that because he and many of his hon. Friends believe that the council estates are their sole preserve. [Interruption.] We have heard it again from his hon. Friends on the Back Bench. I have never heard such arrogance.
  Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to trade arguments with the Minister. We shall have an opportunity to do that when it is appropriate and in order to do so. All that I want to ask at this point is this. If the wording in Hansard suggests that the Minister has in fact stated a position different from that which Ministers previously stated, will it be in order for me to raise the matter tomorrow or at the earliest sitting of the House after the Official Report is made available?
  Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment. The hon. Gentleman can check the record and no doubt we can deal with it at the time.
  Question put and agreed to
  Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 22

  REFERENCE OF EXCESSIVE RENTS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
  Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 16, line 9, leave out "if?.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 19.
  Mr. McCartney: I had intended to wait for the Minister's explanation and then point out how inadequate it was. Little did I know how inadequate it was to be, especially as there was considerable discussion about this point in another place. Indeed, one of the main protagonists in that debate is here today. The amendment deals with the referral of excessive rents to the rent assessment committee—the RAC—which was established to get rid of the rent officer and the local rent committees. Despite the inadequacy of the Minister's comments, it is important to take account of the intention behind the amendment and to explain why the Opposition regard it as insufficient to allay our fears about what will really happen in the market place.
  The landlord's power to determine the type of tenancy is especially significant in areas of housing stress. In many respects, the landlord's power to determine whether it is an assured tenancy or an assured shorthold tenancy will to a large extent determine the protection for the tenant or potential tenant. It is significant that, in using that power,

  385
  the landlord can negotiate rents higher than those set by the rent assessment committee. I shall return to that in a moment.
  As the Minister was not prepared to explain the Government's position, it is incumbent on me to set out what the Government's position was when the matter was debated in another place. In that debate, the Earl of Caithness said:
  "As noble Lords will by now be well aware, we on this side of the House start from the proposition that the rent for an assured tenancy should be first and foremost a matter for free negotiation and agreement between landlord and the tenant. That, in our view, is a necessary and entirely proper feature of the free market principle which we are seeking to apply to private rented housing.
  Thus under the new regime the landlord and tenant will be free to negotiate not only the initial rent for the tenancy but also—if they wish—a contractual procedure for reviewing that rent at subsequent intervals. In cases where they do agree on such a procedure, that procedure will be binding on both parties with no provision for it to be overridden by statute. The primacy of contract is absolutely fundamental to our thinking in this respect."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; vol. 501, c. 399]
  The principle behind this is the free market, but in areas of housing stress how can landlord and tenant be free on a balanced basis to negotiate rent levels and terms of tenancy? In reality, that will never be the position. The tenant or potential tenant will always be in a take-it-or-leave-it situation and significantly under pressure when it comes to determining the level of rent.
  In terms of legal status, this is a unique attempt to write into legislation in this country the ability of a landlord or other person to make an agreement which removes the contractual rights, legal obligations and right to seek legal redress from the terms of a contract. No such principle exists in any other part of English law. Indeed, employment law is quite the opposite—no employer can force an employee to agree to the removal of his rights. Yet the noble Lord said that, once a tenant had come to an arrangement with a landlord, no matter that it be under pressure, the tenant's ability at a later date to seek redress through the RAC would be ultra vires.
  I know of cases where landlords have put considerable pressure on tenants to vary their rent arrangements. In Wigan, that often happens with homes in multi-occupation. Young women living on their own are especially vulnerable. The landlord says that he wants an extra £5 or £7 a week, and if the tenant is not prepared to pay, the landlord will subdivide the tenancy and bring in another person to share that accommodation. I know of one recent case of a young woman having the only room that she rented split into two. The landlord attempted to put in another woman to share that accommodation because the tenant said that she could not afford to pay more than the rent that had originally been agreed.
  Tenants are harassed by landlords who want to change the tenancy arrangements. We must therefore seriously consider the amendments and determine whether they are adequate to protect the rights of tenants and ensure that they are in the same bargaining position as the landlord. Unless there is equality of bargaining, there can be no equality or freedom for a tenant when negotiating with a landlord.
  Many prospective tenants face the problem of key money. They might telephone the landlord after seeing an
  386
  advertisement, be asked to go to see him immediately and then be asked to make an offer on the level of rent that they are prepared to pay and what they are prepared to pay as a deposit and key money. People in desperate circumstances have no choice but to accept whatever the landlord wants. In doing so, they give away their rights to further consideration of the tenancy arrangement. It is important to decide whether the amendment is adequate to deal with that. I do not think that it is.
  The Minister of State said in another place:
  "We believe that the statutory rent-fixing procedure we have designed will ensure adequate protection for tenants in those situations where it is needed. But we are quite determined that the law should not at any stage get in the way of people who are perfectly capable of sorting matters out between themselves."
  How is that to be defined in an area of housing stress? It is a throw-away phrase. The noble Lord continued:
  "Where the rent assessment committee determines a rent, that will be the rent payable under the tenancy unless the landlord and tenant agree on a different figure. The tenant cannot be compelled to pay more than the rent assessment committee's determined rent. I repeat … there is no X factor."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; Vol. 501, c. 400.]
  In reality, there is an X factor in the market place. It is necessary for people to have roofs over their heads. The landlord makes it clear that either the tenant agrees to a new arrangement or he will not continue the tenancy. With a shorthold assured tenancy, at the end of six months the tenant is on the road with his backpack. He can only hope that the local authority will put him in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  The throw-away phrases during the debate in another place are meaningless in the battle to help tenants secure their rights in the market place, where the landlord has the ability to determine the rent level. Although the noble Lord's statement was inadequate, at least he attempted to answer the questions put by the Opposition. However, he did not say why the Government had failed to do anything about clause 22(3). Why do not the amendments contain a redefinition of the clause, which states:
  "(3) Where an application is made to a rent assessment committee under subsection (1) above with respect to the rent under an assured shorthold tenancy, the committee shall not make such a determination as is referred to in that subsection unless they consider—
  (a) that there is a sufficient number of similar dwelling-houses in the locality let on assured tenancies (whether shorthold or not)"?
  Who determines what is sufficient in London, in Wigan, in Manchester, in Halifax, in Cardiff—
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Or in Sheffield.
  Mr. McCartney: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not mentioning Sheffield.
  On the one hand, the Minister appears to be giving the tenant the right of redress, but on the other the phraseology he uses in the clause gives the tenant no right of redress whatever if the RAC says that there are not sufficient houses of a similar tenancy to enable it to determine the tenant's application. The tenant will have to pay up or get on his bike and get out.
  Clause 22(3)(b) states:
  ?(b) that the rent payable under the assured shorthold tenancy in question is significantly higher than the rent which the landlord might reasonably be

  387
  expected to be able to obtain under the tenancy, having regard to the level of rents payable under the tenancies referred to in paragraph (a) above."
  What is the meaning of "significantly higher"? If we are to believe the Minister of State, once the RAC makes a determination, that is the rent. That means that there is an X factor. What is "significantly higher"—£1, £2, £3; 10, 20, 30 or 40 per cent? Is it to be significantly higher than the minimum level of housing benefit set by the local DHSS office?
  Who determines that? If a person is homeless in Cardiff or Wigan, he is 100 per cent. homeless. Is it determined in this Bill that in Cardiff a person may be lucky and get the rent assessment committee to assist him, but, unfortunately, in Wigan a person cannot and the answer is to move to Cardiff? That is the sort of double meaning in the legislation.
  The legislation gives the illusion that tenants can call their landlords to account and can secure their rights. The ability to negotiate in the market place and to determine both whether the rent level is fair and other tenancy conditions is an illusion. It is an illusion that a tenant can seek redress.
  Mr. Redmond: The national mobility scheme, is designed to help people move from one local authority to another. If a person gets on his bike and moves south, obviously becoming part of the homeless sector, he is not allowed to go on to the local authority housing list because he does not have his families, with him. Until he can get his family down south, he cannot go on a waiting list. That happens in authorities which are part of the national mobility scheme, and it is escalating the homeless problem. Can my hon. Friend explain that or will the Minister do so when he replies? Many of my constituents have moved south for a job, which has meant separation from their families with all the hardship, stress and strain that that brings to family life.
  9 pm
  Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Coincidentally, I was the member of the Back Bench Opposition team in Committee who was given the dubious pleasure of moving this amendment, which was new clause 36. I do not want to go over old ground, but it may be helpful to the Minister if I give him the short reply given to me by his predecessor. It may assist him to give me an adequate response.
  The gist of my argument was that, in the changeover, the national mobility scheme should remain and that arrangements made between inner and outer London boroughs should remain, irrespective of the terms of the tenancy and whether it was in the public or private sector. It was the only occasion when I paid tribute to the Government, and it was for setting up a mobility scheme some years ago. Despite that, the then Minister, who is not present now, said:
  "I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I understand that the new clause is based on proposals put to the joint committee of the London area mobility scheme, on which the boroughs participating in that committee have not yet reached agreement. So irrespective of its merits or otherwise it is premature, and therefore I resist it.
  I am not inclined to accept the principle behind the new clause. It is preferable that participation in mobility schemes should remain voluntary.?—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15 March 1988; c. 1642.]
  388
  The market forces apply. That was the short shrift that I got. It is ironic that that was the last time that the Minister spoke from the Dispatch Box, so I suppose that there is some justice in that.
  I hope that the Minister can give us some brief indication of the reasoning behind the Government's proposed amendments and why the Government have not included some redefinition of clause 22(3) so that tenants with assured shorthold or assured tenancies can use it for rent levels and other tenancy conditions. Previously, the Minister failed to give a commitment to meet the young homeless in London and elsewhere. I hope that he will not treat this request with the same disdain but that he will get on his hind legs and come to the Dispatch Box. We are awaiting his clarification of the debate in the House of Lords and of this debate.
  Mr. Trippier: The speech by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was less than worthy of him. I know him well: he is an hon. Member representing the north-west, like myself. Until I heard his speech, I thought highly of him. I always thought that he was an intelligent man, yet he asked why the then Minister for Housing and Planning did not state the Government's position. He was a member of the Committee for a long time, and he would have been present on Report when the Committee proceedings were made clear. If he was not, I should like to know why.
  On Report, an undertaking was given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was then Minister for Housing and Planning—that he would concede that the proviso served no useful purpose.
  Mr. Battle: The then Minister made promises of concessions in Committee that have not materialised.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) should consider what he is saying in his interventions. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning was responding to appeals from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Makerfield has not done his homework. He has not even looked at the record of the Report stage or the proceedings that he attended for several months.
  Mr. McCartney: I used to think that, as an hon. Member representing the north-west, the Minister was an honourable gentlemen. The Minister is making a patchwork of personal attacks on myself and other Members——
  Mr. Boateng: A farrago.
  Mr. McCartney: That is the word I wanted. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) attended a better school than me. I had the benefit of a Scottish education.
  The Minister owes the House an explanation of clause 22(3). The then Minister for Housing and Planning said that he would consider the amendment, but if my recollection is correct it did not concern only the specific point made in the House of Lords, which watered down the promise given. Will the Minister please give us an answer?
  Mr. Trippier: I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to the specific point that he made about clause 22(1) and 22(3), if he will allow me. The hon. Gentleman knows full well why we conceded this point.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield referred to debates in the other place and to the rent regime covering full assured tenancies. We are dealing with shorthold tenancies, under which there is a right to apply at any time, to a rent assessment committee for a rent determination. The rent assessment committee will consider whether the rent payable is above market level, and if it is, it will determine a market rent, which will override the contractual rent. I am sure that I am enlightening the hon. Member for Makerfield—I will give him the benefit of doubt—but this point must have arisen several times in Committee.
  Mr. Redmond: It is important to assess the correct level for a rent, but will the Minister consider a method of ensuring that landlords carry out repairs to make a property habitable? When assessing what is fair and reasonable, that must be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Trippier: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because his comments have nothing to do with the clause. If we were to go down that road, we would have to discuss—we may have time to do so later: for example. on Friday—whether local authorities, not just the private sector, should be made to keep up to date with the repairs for which they are responsible.
  The House will know that subsection (3) will still apply—the hon. Member for Makerfield was right—thus the rent assessment committee will be empowered to make a determination of rent only if it considers, first, that there is a sufficient number of similar properties in the locality let on assured tenancies and, secondly, that the rent payable in the case before it is significantly above the rent levels prevailing under those other tenancies.
  Mr. Bradley: As a Member representing a north-west constituency, the Minister should understand the position in Manchester. I shall give a practical example of how people accept shorthold tenancies. The Minister should understand the position well because I explained it in Committee. If he had read Hansard, he would have recognised what happens.
  People desperate for accommodation race to get the Manchester Evening News and then race to the telephone to try to get an appointment for accommodation. They race to the accommodation and, if they are lucky, they are
  ?(6A) If, in proceedings to enforce a liability arising by virtue of subsection (3) above, it appears to the court—
  (a) that, prior to the event which gave rise to the liability, the conduct of the former residential occupier or any person living with him in the premises concerned was such that it is reasonable to mitigate the damages for which the landlord in default would otherwise be liable, or
  (b) that, before the proceedings were begun, the landlord in default offered to reinstate the former residential occupier in the premises in question and either it was unreasonable of the former residential occupier to refuse that offer or, if he had obtained alternative accommodation before the offer was made, it would have been unreasonable of him to refuse that offer if he had not obtained that accommodation,
  the court may reduce the amount of damages which would otherwise be payable to such amount as it thinks appropriate."
  Amendment (a) thereto, in line 6, leave out ?is reasonable? and insert
  ?would be wholly unjust not?.
  Amendment (b) thereto, in line 10, after ?offered?, insert ?in writing?.
  in a queue of fewer than 20. If they are very lucky, they are at the front of the queue. The landlord offers accommodation on his terms. The applicants cannot determine whether the provisions in the clause about other properties or levels of rent in the area are appropriate and, in desperation, they accept the accommodation. The Minister has said that tenants can go to a rent assessment committee at any stage. If, because of the provisions of the clause, a tenant cannot go to a rent assessment committee to get his rent lowered and cannot afford the rent to which in his desperation he agreed, is evicted by the landlord, will he be considered to be intentionally homeless? I hope that the Minister will reply.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister does not answer. The problem may be that he is unable to do so. It would help if he could answer the question.
  Mr. Trippier: I made that point clear. I shall write to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). I would have to examine his precise example.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Clause 27

  DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTION
  Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 18, line 35, leave out "20th November 1987" and insert "9th June 1988"
  Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: Nos. 21 and 22.
  No. 23, in page 19, line 27, leave out
  "proceedings are begun to enforce the liability"
  and insert
  " the date on which proceedings to enforce the liability are finally disposed of"
  Amendment (a) thereto, at end insert
  'or within the period of six months beginning on the date on which the proceedings are begun, whichever shall be the earlier'.
  Lords amendment No. 24.
  Lords amendment No. 25, in page 19, line 34, at end insert—
  Amendmetn (c) thereto, in line 11, leave out from ?and? to end of line 15 and insert
  ?it was unreasonable of the former residential occupier to refuse that offer.'.
  Lords amendment No.26.
  Lords amendment No. 27, in page 19, line 45, after "for" insert "doing the acts or".
  Amendment (a) thereto, in line 1, before 'doing', insert
  'with the exception of any grounds for possession under this Act that relate solely to the conduct of the former residential occupier or of any persons living with him in the premises concerned,'.
  Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 33, 247, 248 and 269.
  Mr. Trippier: All the amendments are concerned with the new civil right to damages created by clause 27, the new offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which is created by clause 29 and the existing offence. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 take account of the fact that the clause was widened on Report to cover actions by superior landlords in cases where the landlord knew that the tenant might leave as a result of harassment or persistent withdrawal of services. The amendments provide that the clause shall be effective as from the date of those amendments on Report and not retrospective in the sense in which we would deplore it.
  Amendment No. 22 clarifies the meaning of the word "calculated," as used to describe the actions of a landlord who may be liable for damages under this clause. Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 make similar amendments to the existing criminal offence in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and the new offence in clause 29. Since this widening of the offence covers both acts of commission and the withholding of services, amendments Nos. 26 and 27 widen the defence provided by clause 27(7)(b). Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 similarly widen the defence provided in clause 29.
  9.15 pm
  Amendment No. 23 provides that a landlord shall not be liable under clause 27(3) if he reinstates the tenant before proceedings are finally disposed of. Amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 269 make amendments that have a similar effect to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.
  Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 23 would make it a requirement that liability under clause 27(3) would arise if the tenant were not reinstated within six months of the date of proceedings starting. The aim of the amendment is to prevent a landlord from dragging out proceedings and thus deterring the tenant from pursuing his case to its conclusion, but there is no need for a time limit in this case. The tenant does not have to accept the landlord's offer to reinstate him. If he accepts an offer before bringing proceedings, he will not get damages under clause 27. If he accepts at any point afterwards, he may not get clause 27 damages but it will still be open to him to bring an action against the landlord for breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. The longer the landlord spins out the proceedings, the greater the potential loss to him if he loses. If the tenant wins his case, he could also get interest on the damages. It is the tenant's choice whether to accept the landlord's offer of reinstatement, knowing that if he accepts at a late stage in the proceedings he will lose any prospect of clause 27 damages. He gains nothing by the amendment, and I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
  Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 25 wants the wording of amendment No. 25 to specify that the court shall consider mitigating damages only where it would be wholly unjust not to do so. It was the intention of the noble Lords who drew attention to the inability of the court to mitigate damages that damages should be reduced only in exceptional circumstances. The present
  392
  wording of the amendment employs a well-tried concept—that of reasonableness. It is not necessary to ask the court to decide whether something is manifestly unjust.
  The whole thrust of clauses 27 to 29 is against harassment. The clauses introduce a new criminal penalty and swingeing civil penalties. The conduct of a tenant will have to be very bad indeed for a court to decide that it is reasonable to mitigate damages that are clearly designed as a penalty for committing an illegal act. These are not normal compensatory damages; they are penal damages. The court will be aware of that, so I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
  Mr. Soley: Does the Minister intend to urge his hon. Friends to ensure that legal aid is available in these cases?
  Mr. Trippier: I understand that legal aid is available for all sorts and conditions of men and women.
  Mr. Soley: Not so.
  Mr. Trippier: Then I shall take advice on that point.
  Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 25 would make it a requirement that the offer to reinstate a tenant should be made in writing. In practice, written evidence is not necessarily any more valid or compelling than oral evidence. Both can be equally subject to dispute. Any sensible landlord will make any offer in writing, but a tenant can deny that he ever received it. Copies can be forged. The court would still need to make up its mind whether a bona fide offer had been made, taking account of all the circumstances. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment.
  Amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 25 would remove all the references in amendment No. 25 to the reasonableness of the tenant refusing reinstatement if he had obtained alternative accommodation. The Lords amendment enables the court to consider fully the reasonableness of the tenant refusing an offer of reinstatement.
  A landlord should not be liable for extremely heavy damages because his tenant happens to find more congenial alternative accommodation. Amendment No. 25 focuses the court's mind on the reasonableness of a theoretically homeless tenant going back to accommodation from which he has been illegally evicted. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 27 seeks to prevent a landlord from claiming that he had reasonable grounds for doing acts or withdrawing services where he had a case for proceeding against the tenant or someone living with him on one of the misconduct grounds.
  The amendment is not helpful. The grounds referred to in clause 27(7)(b) are not the statutory grounds for possession in schedule 2, and it is misleading to insert a reference to them as amendment 27(c) does. The subsection as amended enables a landlord to offer a defence that he had reasonable grounds for some act he had committed, which caused the occupier to leave the premises or otherwise interfered with his enjoyment of them. Misconduct by the tenant which provoked him to a particular act might or might not be considered by the courts to be reasonable grounds for that act. The courts will of course always be aware that illegal eviction and the withholding or withdrawing of services can be criminal offences, and that the proper way in which to obtain possession is through the courts, and will have that in mind

  393
  in assessing any situation. There is no case for an amendment on the lines of amendment (a), and I am afraid I cannot accept it.
  Mr. Boateng: The manner in which the Under-Secretary of State dismissed the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the availability of legal aid to people who complain of harassment by their landlords will have caused a great deal of anxiety among those of us who advise and assist the victims of such harassment. It will cause even more concern to the victims of harassment. I urge the Minister to take immediate advice before the debate on this amendment closes.
  The idea that legal aid is readily available in cases such as these—to all manner and classes of person, as the Minister describes them—is absolute nonsense, and I choose my words advisedly. One of the major causes of concern to practitioners of all party political persuasions about the resourcing and administration of the legal aid scheme is precisely that there are groups of people of relatively modest means and people who have little or no income but must rely on savings who are excluded from legal aid because of the civil legal aid regulations. It is not good enough for Conservative Members to say that that is not true, as those of us who spent many hours considering the Legal Aid Bill in Committee expressed our concern over that. There is no room for complacency.
  Mr. Trippier rose——
  Mr. Boateng: I see that the Under-Secretary of State is champing at the bit. I am happy to give way, in the hope that he may be able to give some reassurance to those of us who follow these issues carefully.
  Mr. Trippier: I have taken the hon. Gentleman's advice and taken legal advice as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of misleading hon. Members by suggesting that changes to legal aid are affected by what we are talking about. I am not sure that what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said is on the record, as it was semi sotto voce, but he was speaking of cases of this kind. My understanding was that he was talking about housing matters and said that legal aid was being withdrawn in housing matters. That is not the case. I am sorry, but there appears to be a dispute between the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will make himself clear.
  Mr. Soley: The Government's proposals for legal aid, which they are changing, will make people less eligible for legal aid, and in some cases, people who would have got legal aid will not get it in future.
  Mr. Boateng: That is the point. Nothing that the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith gives any comfort when it comes to the availability of legal aid for the victims of harassment. That is because of the changes in the regulations pursuant to the Legal Aid Act 1988 and changes in the quantum of damages, the likely remedy available to those who allege harassment and their chances of success. Those who apply for legal aid in cases of alleged harassment by landlords do
  394
  not stand the sort of chance that they should have of receiving legal advice and the assistance that they so desperately need. It is on these issues that we seek clarification from the Minister. When he reflects upon them in the fullness of time, he may return with a more considered and reassuring response.
  I shall reflect generally on the impact of the amendments on the mischief that is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are several ingredients that would feature in an effective law against harassment. Central to these is the likelihood of the landlord who is determined to ride roughshod over the rights of the individual tenant not being in any way facilitated by the processes of the court. The issues that we seek to address in considering the amendments go precisely to that point.
  We are anxious to ensure that landlords do not drag out proceedings in a way that is beneficial to their purposes. We are anxious, too, to ensure that the quantum of damages will act as a real deterrent to the landlord who is determined to make a quick buck by inflicting hardship and suffering on the tenant and excluding him or her from the premises. I am talking of the landlord who will be prepared to winkle out a tenant by putting him or her at a disadvantage in terms of occupancy of the premises.
  We are concerned to ensure that nothing gives the impression to the landlord that he stands to gain anything by going to court and telling a pack of lies. Experience shows those who have had anything to do with advising professionally, whether they be citizens' advice bureau workers, lawyers, or tenancy relations officers, that when a landlord will benefit from lying, he will lie shamelessly and blatantly to maximise the opportunity for profit. Our concern is that he should be deterred from so doing. If he believes that he can minimise his loss by making allegations about the conduct of the tenant, he will do so. The amendment seeks to ensure that that will not substantially reduce damages.
  If he can say that he has given notice and has made an offer to a tenant of reasonable alternative accommodation when he has not, and he is not required to show that he has made that offer in writing, he will do so. That is why we require the individual to make the offer in writing. Then it is there in black and white. It is that sort of amendment that gives the tenant and those who advise him the certainty that he does not simply have rights on paper but remedies in reality. When one talks of harassment in the real world, a right without remedy is meaningless when it comes to seeking to achieve a particular purpose.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. McCartney: Recently in my constituency, a landlord offered tenancies to two young women and said that dogs, other animals or children were not allowed. Subsequently, one of the women became pregnant. The landlord attempted to remove her from the tenancy on the basis that he and his solicitor wrote saying that she had broken the terms of the tenancy by becoming pregnant and so should remove herself forthwith from the premises. That has happened. Given what my hon. Friend has just said about the right of access to legal assessment, will the amendment help such a tenant?
  Mr. Boateng: The Opposition's amendment would at least give such an individual a greater sense of security and certainty that there would be an effective remedy; that

  395
  there would be an appropriate quantum of damages if the case were made out; and that there would be a greater and more stringent test that the landlord would be obliged to fulfil than is currently the case. That is self-evident on the face of the amendment.
  However, one must recognise the market context into which the amendments fall in which there will be every economic incentive for the landlord to get the tenant out, come hell or high water. The great danger of the path down which the Government have sought to go in this area of housing; their reliance on the private market; their obeisance to the mythology that somehow the private sector and resources within it will free accommodation into the housing market, is that even with the safeguards, even as we seek to amend the Bill, there will not be sufficient protection for the individual tenant.
  That is why, when this matter was considered in the other place, time and again noble Lords on both sides and on no side sought reassurances from the Minister of State. We say that the reassurances that they gleaned are inadequate and need to be supplemented in the way that we seek tonight.
  Mr. Winnick: Is not one of the dangers that landlords with regulated tenants feel that they are being discriminated against? Clearly, if the letting occurred once the Housing Bill becomes an Act, market rents would be the order of the day. Therefore, those landlords and property companies with existing tenants will ask why they should continue to be discriminated against by their tenants not being forced to pay the full whack.
  Rachmanism emerged at the time of the 1957 Rent Act and the great danger is that the gangster element in the private sector—I hope that most landlords will not use such methods—will use any means to get a tenant out and not be particularly concerned about a fine, because once a tenant is out he will have achieved his objective.
  Mr. Boateng: Of course that is so. Under this legislation, the pressure will be on to get the old tenant out and a new tenant in under the new arrangements. Once that is done, the landlord can charge what he likes and get the tenant out whenever he wants. That is the whole philosophy behind this Bill.
  I am anxious that the Minister should respond, amendment by amendment, to our arguments. I begin with Lords amendment No. 23, the purpose of which is to prevent a landlord from dragging out proceedings brought by a tenant under clause 27 with the aim of discouraging a tenant's claim for compensation. In other words, the landlord might otherwise deter a tenant from bringing the matter to trial by dragging out the proceedings for as long as he could. Under clause 27 as drafted, a landlord could avoid liability either by reinstating the tenant before proceedings begin or by observing a court order that the tenant be reinstated.
  On Report in the House of Lords, a Government amendment was accepted allowing the landlord to avoid liability by reinstating his tenant at any time prior to the completion of the court case. However, that claim is wide open to abuse by landlords. The Under-Secretary of State and those who advise him must surely appreciate that all too often, a tenant will be unable to secure a court order for reinstatement. One of the most common tricks—it is one that predates Rachman—is that the landlord relets the
  396
  property. He will then have every incentive to spin out the proceedings, expecting that the original tenant will give up his case.
  Those of us who have been in legal practice—there are practitioners in all parts of the House—know that to be so. We have been party to such attempts and have sought to negate them when they impact adversely on our clients. However, the fact remains that many tenants will give up. The point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, and dismissed so disparagingly by the Minister, was that under new legal aid regulations, the plaintiff in such a case will have to make his legal aid contributions as long as the case continues.
  It must be clear even to the Minister that there is a positive advantage to the landlord in spinning out court proceedings, knowing that the longer will be the period in which the tenant must continue making legal aid contributions. Not only will the tenant be without a home, but he or she will be paying for being homeless. It may or may not be the case ultimately that the tenant concerned will get his money back—but he will have to take that risk. That will cause many tenants to give up.
  Mr. Soley: My understanding is that, if the landlord makes an offer to reinstate the tenant towards the end of a court case, the proceedings will stop—but that, if afterwards the landlord again takes steps to get rid of the same tenant, that tenant will have to start proceedings all over again.
  Mr. Boateng: That is the horror of the situation, and we hope that the Minister will respond. We are making these points not for the sake of doing so, but because we are anxious for clarification. We do not want to believe that such may be the case, but all the evidence from the plain words of the Bill, and from our experience of such cases, is that that is what will happen. In the case that I described, only in the unlikely event that the tenant pursues his case to its conclusion, which could take several years, will the landlord have to decide between reinstating that tenant or paying compensation under clause 27.
  Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has said, the last-minute reinstatement of the tenant will not enable the landlord to avoid liability for ordinary compensatory or exemplary damages—unless the tenant gives up that claim as well—the amount of such damages is usually far lower than the gain to the landlord from illegally evicting. That is why clause 27 is in the Bill. Its deterrent effect will be substantially reduced, because any unscrupulous landlord—in fact, any landlord determined to maximise the value of his property—is bound to use the "wait and see" tactic.
  Mr. Winnick: It is interesting to note that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said in reply to an intervention of mine about the strong possibility of a repeat of Rachmanism that one of the changes from the Rent Act 1957 was that powers were being taken against unscrupulous landlords. Do not the Government anticipate a number of Rachmans, Bergers and Hoogstratens who will use every means possible to try to get out tenants who are at present protected by law? They will have every incentive to do so, because lettings will then be subject to market rents and tenants will have to pay far more than they do now.
  Mr. Boateng: During the various stages of consideration of the Bill in another place, the Minister of State was quite candid. He said, as we do, that while the Hoogstratens of this world were not necessarily typical of all landlords—mercifully—the pressure would nevertheless be there. As long as the pressure is there, we have a responsibility, here and in the other place, to get the matter right. We say that the other place did not get it right, and we want to know how we can try to get it right now.
  Dragging the case out would not necessarily lead to any increase in the amount of ordinary damages. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member, from a sedentary position—[HON. MEMBERS: ?It is the same one."] It is the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) again. He is accusing us of dragging out this debate. Let me tell him that we will drag it out for as long as it takes to protect those in this city and elsewhere who, day in, day out, live in fear of the sort of landlord whom we have a duty to deter. We will do it if it takes all night. This is not a cause for ironical cheers or hand clapping on the part of the hon. Member for Wirral, South. He does no credit to himself or his party by acting in that way. Many Conservative Members take this matter seriously. I hope that the Minister takes it seriously, because we certainly do, and we intend to persist with it.
  It does not seem unreasonable to want the purported purpose of the amendment made into a reality. We do not want the position that we fear would result if the amendment were carried in its current form, in which the landlord would be given a last chance to reconsider his position in the light of the possible salutory effect of court proceedings. Nor do we believe that our requirement would be met by giving the landlord a limited time after court proceedings have begun in which to reinstate the tenant. In practice very few landlords will be able and willing to reinstate the tenant more than six months after proceedings start. That is how it will be in the real world. In order to protect the tenant and create a climate in which responsible landlordism is encouraged and to provide a context in which the Hoogsbratens of this world and others of that kind are discouraged it is necessary that our amendment to Lords amendment No. 23 is accepted.
  9.45 pm
  Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 25 is a short amendment in which we seek simply to leave out the words, "is reasonable" from clause 5 and insert in their place
  "would be wholly unjust not".
  Again, the reason for that has its heart in our wish to make sure that everything possible is done to reduce the opportunity for misconduct on the part of the landlord. As the Bill was originally drafted, the court had no power to reduce compensation for alleged misconduct by the tenant. Under the Bill as amended, the court can reduce the amount of compensation by such an amount as it considers appropriate if the conduct of the tenant or any person living with him makes it reasonable to do so.
  In Committee, the Earl of Caithness, speaking on behalf of the Government, rejected amendments that would give the court a wide discretion as to how much compensation to award for illegal eviction and harassment. We agree with him in saying:
  "We want the courts to award damages which fully compensate the tenant, not to be able to reduce the sum to a point where every landlord can afford to harass, knowing that
  398
  the gain he makes from his illegal action will outweigh the penalty imposed by the courts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1988; Vol. 500, c. 94–5.]
  The noble Lord Jenkins took the view that full compensation should be awarded save
  "in wholly exceptional circumstances"
  or
  "if the damages as assessed under Clause 28 are manifestly unjust in all the circumstances of the case."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1988; Vol. 500, c. 93.]
  On Report, the Minister of State pointed out:
  "If the discretion given to the court is too wide, we suspect that damages awarded are likely to continue at present levels which often bear relationship to the tenant's loss."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 1988; Vol. 500, c. 1420.]
  The noble Lord was recognising a factor with which many of us have had to deal in constituency cases. There are the most horrific examples of bad landlords. Even though the tenant has proved his case with the assistance of the tenancy relations officer—we know how hard that that can be and how difficult the evidential burden is—even though the tenant has gone through all the hoops, the amount awarded is almost derisory in terms of its relationship to the loss, hardship, suffering, mental torment and anguish undergone by the tenant.
  We find it difficult and unacceptable that the Bill as amended does not achieve what the noble Lord wanted it to achieve, in that the court will still able to exercise a wide discretion, so wide as to render nugatory the aims and objectives of the Minister of State, which we entirely accept.
  There is no definition of when it is reasonable to reduce compenstion for misconduct, or by how much it should be reduced. The result of that will be that landlords will be encouraged to raise false allegations of misconduct—a fear that we expressed earlier—in the hope of reducing compensation to a lower level than their gain from the eviction, so weakening the deterrent effect of clause 27 which we are anxious to see strengthened. It would also be open to the court to reduce compensation for trivial or isolated acts of misconduct. The amendment seeks to make it clear that such a reduction should be made only in exceptional circumstances when it would be wholly unfair not to do so.
  The power remains with the court. The avenues by which to arrive at a just decision are not open to it. There are precedents in the wording of statutes for saying that this power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances in which it would be wholly unfair not to exercise it. So the emphasis is on deterrence and on protecting the tenant—that is what we are trying to do. That is what all reasonable people should try to do, recognising the pressure that will be on the tenant.
  The pressures have already begun to show themselves. My hon. Friends will know from their work and from messages that they receive from advice centres, law centers and local law societies the extent to which, in anticipation of the Bill and the largesse that it will make available to landlords, the winkling has already begun.
  Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 25 is designed to ensure that an offer of reinstatement is given in writing: that is only fair. Lords amendment No. 25 gives the court the power to reduce the amount of compensation that the tenant would otherwise receive if it appeared to the court that before the proceedings began the landlord offered to reinstate the tenant and that offer was unreasonably refused.
  Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the fallacies in the Government's thinking is the belief that the tenant and the landlord are equal parties to an agreement and that no outsider need therefore intervene when a deal is negotiated? That is sheer madness in places where there is an acute housing shortage, and where landlords have all the power and prospective tenants have none.
  This Bill would merely reinforce landlords' power. We recognise that some of them abide by the law—all the same, it has been tilted in their favour—but unscrupulous landlords will consider themselves mugs if they do not take all possible steps, legal or otherwise, to get tenants out. I see the Minister shaking his head, but why on earth should not unscrupulous landlords do their utmost to get tenants out? That makes all the sense in the world. Once the tenants are out, the landlords can do what they like with the, accommodation—let it at market rents, for instance.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that his proposal is the minimum required? If the Government do not accept it they are clearly indifferent to what will happen—my hon. Friend has said that it is already happening. Tenants will be pressurised and harassed.
  Mr. Boateng: I entirely accept that, and I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. There is nothing onerous or unreasonable about requiring a landlord who claims that he has offered to reinstate a tenant and who has received an unreasonable refusal to give evidence of that offer in writing. We have yet to hear any reasoned objection to that proposal from the Government. What can be wrong with asking a landlord who says that his offer was unreasonably rejected for written evidence of his offer? One of the ways in which the courts have traditionally attempted to balance the unequal relationship between landlord and tenant has been to require, if not written evidence, at least something that shows the existence of an agreement which can be of value to, and can be taken into account by, the courts.
  In such circumstances, what could be more reasonable than saying that the whole agreement need not be in writing but that if a landlord seeks to rely on a tenant's unreasonable refusal of his offer, he must show that that offer was made in writing? Otherwise, landlords will have every reason to maintain falsely that they made an offer, on the offchance that the judge will believe them. That sometimes happens. Some people are accomplished liars and it is not always possible for the courts to detect such persons, although mercifully they often do; one has a certain feel for such matters. It is not unreasonable to make such a requirement and so deter those who seek to reduce compensation and waste the court's time by laying a false trail. The Minister has given no satisfactory explanation as to why the amendment should be rejected.
  Amendment No. 25 requires the court to determine whether it was unreasonable of a former residential occupier to refuse the offer. Clause 27(6)(a) gives the court the power to reduce the amount of compensation that the tenant would otherwise receive if it appears that, prior to the proceedings beginning, the landlord has offered to reinstate the tenant and that offer has been unreasonably refused. Under the Bill as drafted, the court cannot take into accounts in deciding whether a refusal of an offer to reinstate is unreasonable, the fact that the tenant may have obtained alternative accommodation, however well settled the tenant may have become.
  400
  Suppose that a tenant has been pushed out of his home in horrendous circumstances. Having gone through what can be an extremely traumatic experience, the natural thing for him to do is to put down roots as quickly as he can in his new abode. We say that it is wrong that the courts should not be able to take that into account when determining whether the residential occupier unreasonably refused the offer of reinstatement. It is a simple amendment strengthening the hands of the court in arriving at a just decision.
  The Opposition have tabled a bundle of amendments seeking to remedy the fact that the protection given is insufficient for the purposes set out in the Bill. We seek to protect the tenant from the harassment that will result from the Bill and to give the courts the powers and discretion to exercise their function in a just way and allow them to establish the true relationship between landlord and tenant rather than to allow the landlords deliberately to obscure the truth.
  We commend the amendments to the House in the context of a Bill that has already had a marked impact on the incidence of harassment in our constituencies. It is not good enough for Ministers in this House or in another place to tell us that we have no need to fear because everything will be all right and that the provisions are the best that can possibly be arrived at. That reassurance will fall on deaf ears in terms of those at the cutting edge of the housing crisis and the current spate of speculation in housing.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill, and the Lords Amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Housing Bill
  Lords amendments again considered.
  Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Boateng: It is like the scene in "The Devil's Triangle" in which the sea captain throws a lifejacket to a drowning man as the sharks begin to circle and at the same time throws in a bucket or two or offal. Nothing is more certain to attract the speculative sharks infesting the landlord and tenant sea than the smell of blood. This legislation has given them the smell of blood. We seek to substitute a raft for the lifejacket. That is all that we seek to do, but we commend it to the House.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has adequately explained the problem. I shall not delay the House long, as we need to vote on this important matter.
  The Government have based the legislation on the belief that they could revive the rented sector. To try to protect themselves from the charge of Rachmanism, which has given them so many problems in the past, they claim to have put in strong safeguards against harassment. We argued throughout the Committee stage that that was not so and we believe that we have proved the point.
  Here, I pray in aid one whom I would not normally wish to have on my side—Mr. Hoogstraten, who, in the famous "World in Action" programme, said that he

  401
  regarded the Bill as a step in the right direction. When I wrote to the then Minister pointing that out, he replied that he did not think that Mr. Hoogstraten understood the Bill. I believe that Mr. Hoogstraten understands the Bill very well, and I assure the House that his solicitors understand it perfectly. As a result of this legislation, they will be able to get evictions far more easily than ever before. With an assured tenancy, all they have to do is to tell the tenant that they intend to carry out major works. They can then get an eviction just like that—no court case, nothing.
  The Minister intervened on my point about legal aid. Some Conservative Members believe that the relationship between landlord and tenant should be a simple legal relationship and that, if either side feels that the other is not acting according to the contract, they should go to law. My point to the Minister was that legal aid would not be available in all such cases, particularly in view of the impending changes, and that in many cases the person would not even get to a solicitor in the first place. The Government do not begin to understand how serious that is, nor how varied are the practices involved.
  I cite just one example—a constituent of mine who describes himself as well placed to look after himself, well educated, and so on. In that instance, the absentee landlord deliberately failed to pay the mortgage, thus inciting the mortgage company to foreclosure and eviction. The landlords sent messages to the mortgage company indicating that they knew that the bailiffs would be calling and did not intend to oppose any eviction—all the while concealing the fact that there was a protected tenant in occupation of the premises.
  My constituent states:
  "It was only by luck that I was at home when the mortgage company's agent arrived which allowed me and my solicitor to negotiate a way out of this situation by informing the mortgage company that I was in situ."
  That man was paying a rent of about £480 a month, he was represented by a solicitor and he was well able to speak for himself. Despite that, he was advised that it was becoming increasingly common for a landlord deliberately to foreclose on a mortgage and set up an illegal eviction by keeping quiet about the existence of a tenant. Once that luckless tenant is out on the street, the landlord steps forward and pays the mortgage arrears to the mortgage company, thereby re-establishing himself with full control over the premises, having successfully short-circuited all protection given by the law to the tenant.
  If the Government were genuinely concerned about dealing with eviction, they would give local authorities, tenancy relations officers, law centres or some other group in society the power to act on behalf of individuals. They have not done so. Indeed, they are taking away those powers and there will be an increase in the number of evictions. The majority of landlords are very good and have good relationships with their tenants, but there is a large minority of bad landlords. The Government have the cheek to criticise some local authorities that may be bad managers, but they never seem to worry about the Hoogstratens and Rachmans of the world. That is a damaging indictment.
  It is a fact of life that such people exist and we know that those who will be most at risk are generally the disadvantaged—those least able to speak for themselves or
  402
  to put their case to a lawyer. We urge the Government, even at this late stage, to accept what we believe their Lordships intended, which was to tighten the law relating to the Rachmans and Hoogstratens. I believe that eventually the Government will have to go even further, because if they do not, in years to come there will be hideous stories of abuse by individual landlords against tenants who cannot stand up to them in a court of law because they will have neither the resources nor the ability to do so. That is the problem, and that is why we shall vote against the Government.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question on Lords amendment No. 20.
  Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the Government were intending to reject the amendments. We certainly wish to vote against Lords amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.
  Mr. Speaker: I have received no such indication.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 19, line 34, at end insert—
  "and for the purposes of paragraph (a) above, proceedings to enforce a liability are finally disposed of on the earliest date by which the proceedings (including any proceedings on or in consequence of an appeal) have been determined and any time for appealing or further appealing has expired, except that if any appeal is abandoned, the proceedings shall be taken to be disposed of on the date of the abandonment"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 188.

  Division No. 481]

  [10.8 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Chris

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Amos, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cran, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gow, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gregory, Conal

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grist, Ian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ground, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  403

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hannam, John

  Needham, Richard

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Neubert, Michael

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heddle, John

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hill, James

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Holt, Richard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Price, Sir David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Raffan, Keith

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Irving, Charles

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jack, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Janman, Tim

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jessel, Toby

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kilfedder, James

  Shersby, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sims, Roger

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knapman, Roger

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knowles, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Latham, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Squire, Robin

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maclean, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Madel, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maples, John

  Trippier, David

  Marland, Paul

  Trotter, Neville

  Marlow, Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Walden, George

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Waller, Gary

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ward, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mills, Iain

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Watts, John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Moate, Roger

  Wheeler, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Whitney, Ray

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  404

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

  Woodcock, Mike

  and Mr. Michael Fallon.

  Yeo, Tim

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Alton, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Donald

  Gordon, Mildred

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Grocott, Bruce

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Haynes, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Battle, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bell, Stuart

  Holland, Stuart

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Home Robertson, John

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howells, Geraint

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hoyle, Doug

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  John, Brynmor

  Buchan, Norman

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Buckley, George J.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clay, Bob

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clelland, David

  Leighton, Ron

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cohen, Harry

  Lewis, Terry

  Coleman, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Livsey, Richard

  Corbett, Robin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cox, Tom

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Crowther, Stan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Darling, Alistair

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marek, Dr John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

  Meale, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Michael, Alun

  Dixon, Don

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Doran, Frank

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Morley, Elliott

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mullin, Chris

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Murphy, Paul

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Nellist, Dave

  Fisher, Mark

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Foster, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Foulkes, George

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fraser, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Prescott, John

  405

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Straw, Jack

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Redmond, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Richardson, Jo

  Turner, Dennis

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Vaz, Keith

  Robertson, George

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wall, Pat

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilson, Brian

  Short, Clare

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr.Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr.Speaker. Can you confirm that the decision on the procedure that you adopted immediately before the last vote was exactly the same as that adopted at 9.51 pm last night before Division No. 478?
  Mr.Speaker: I was not present at 9.57 last night. There was some slight confusion, but I think that we got it right in the end.
  Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 31

  EXCLUDED TENANCIES AND LICENCES
  Lords amendment No.34, in page 23,line 34, after ?if? insert ?(a)?.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr.Ridley.]
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
  Mr. McCartney: I wish to speak to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 35. It is important to describe the background to rural deprivation. We have concentrated in this debate on inner-city deprivation—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Boateng: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. Members are trying to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), but it is very difficult to do so because of the off-noises on the other side of the Bar.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand. Will those hon. Members who are not in the House but beyond the Bar kindly leave the Chamber and carry on their conversations elsewhere or come into the Chamber and listen to the debate?
  Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.
  Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was about to say that so far in this debate we have concentrated on inner-city deprivation, the role of the private sector in the housing market and the lack of resources allocated to
  406
  public sector housing. In this amendment, we concentrate on the rural poor and the housing crisis in rural England, Wales and Scotland.
  In 1981, the Department of the Environment asked Mr. Brian McLaughlin to prepare a report on rural poverty among low-paid workers, in particular among agricultural workers and those who live in villages and hamlets. The report was so devastating in its criticism of Government policy that it was not published by the Department until 1986. It is known as the deprivation of rural areas report and it highlighted major social problems. It revealed that 25 per cent. of households in rural England live on the poverty line.
  The gap between rich and poor in rural areas is widening. It has been especially noticeable since 1985. Nationally, about 11 per cent. of all households have a gross disposable income of at least three times that of those on supplementary benefit. In rural England, the figure is 26 per cent., so a minority—the rural poor—are living among many affluent people. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is interrupting. If he is so knowledgeable about the problems of the rural poor, he should get to his feet and make a contribution to the debate. If not, he should be quiet.
  For the last 12 months, Opposition Members have been attempting to improve the Bill to benefit the rural poor, but—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Just under 7 per cent. of houses in rural areas are unfit for human habitation. That appalling figure is higher than in most urban areas in Britain. There is a shortage of housing for the poor working classes in rural areas—agricultural workers, retired agricultural workers, the semi-skilled and the unskilled. Many people have been forgotten in the surge to improve rural housing. People indigenous to the rural community have been forgotton in the headlong rush of people moving out from urban areas, who have taken much of the refurbished housing stock at the expense of local people. Add to that reductions in rate support grant to rural district councils and county councils, and we find that a continuing financial and social problem afflicts many rural communities. There have been changes in housing benefit, and the safety net of inadequate public sector housing provision cannot deal with the mounting problems of homelessness.
  Despite their inactivity of the past few years, the Government were moved this summer to consider the problem of the rural economy and rural housing. This month, in Rural Housing, David Clark wrote in an article entitled "Countryside homes":
  "There is a real housing need in villages. Local people simply cannot compete on equal terms with the increasing numbers of more affluent incomers, whether they be commuters, retired or second homers. That comes through strongly in the recent reports from the Association of District Councils, and from the village appraisals and housing surveys produced by parish councils and rural community councils throughout the country, summarised in ACRE's new publication, Affordable homes in the countryside.
  That independent assessment tells the Government clearly that the crisis in rural housing is continuing apace.
  In response, the Government published on 5 July the White Paper dealing with housing in rural areas, which

  407
  relies heavily on the role of the private sector. The Minister will have to explain the consequences of his policies on security of tenure for private sector tenants in rural areas. Paragraph 13 of the Government's response says of the private sector:
  "The Government is keen to establish a greater choice in the provision of rented housing in rural areas as elsewhere. Housing associations should not become the monopolists of the future. Private sector landlords and developers also have an important role to play. In the past the problem has been that the private sector did not envisage being able to make a sufficient return through the provision of lower cost housing at prices that local people could afford. In the rented sector the Government has launched several important measures to encourage investment. First, the Housing Bill will remove statutory rent control from all new lettings. Landlords will be able to charge market rents while tenants will have long term security under assured tenancies and a minimum of six months security on a short hold tenancy. Second, the Business Expansion Scheme is to be extended for the period up to the end of 1993 to cover companies providing housing let on the new assured tenancies."
  That is how the Government envisage the private sector intervening in rural areas.
  There is continuing pressure on the market in rural areas, but the ability of agricultural workers, retired agricultural workers and private tenants to affect that market is almost non-existent. It is nearly impossible for them to get a house to rent at a proper rent. It is virtually impossible for the rural poor to enter even the lower end of the house buyers' market. The average price of a house in East Anglia now exceeds £35,000.
  Those who operate in the private sector will make substantial profits as they increase rent levels and see their property investments increase in value during a housing crisis. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that those living in private rented accommodation retain their existing rights and will not be subject to eviction by their employers without a court order.
  The Government made it clear in the document that they produced in July on the housing crisis in rural areas that they would provide substantial opportunities for farmers and owners of accommodation in farming areas to take advantage of the business expansion scheme and other schemes and to utilise their accommodation by increasing their income from rents and by making sales on the open market. It is important that the Minister gives the House assurances that bear on the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, including the rights within that measure of agricultural workers.
  In another place, an amendment was introduced by the Government to extend the range of excluded tenancies and licences to include those whose tenancy or licence was granted otherwise than for money or money's worth. The Earl of Arran said that the aim of the amendment was to allow eviction without a court order of the non-paying guest who lives completely rent-free. The relevant passage can be found in the House of Lords Hansard, at column 406 on 3 November 1988.
  The amendment was tabled as a consequence of a commitment that was given to Lord Meston on Report. It catches the non-paying guest who lives in accommodation rent free, but it may exclude from protection from eviction employees who live in tied accommodation rent-free. For example, an employee may have a contract that states that his accommodation will be provided rent-free. He will not be able to point to an agreement that shows that he is getting accommodation in return for money or services. The courts may find that such a person is excluded from
  408
  protection, which may result in him being evicted without a court order being made. That is unacceptable, and I do not believe that that was the intention behind the amendment moved in another place. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State will give us that assurance.
  A non-paying guest is not in the same position as an agricultural worker or retired agricultural worker. Unscrupulous property owners, absentee farmers or working farmers should not be able to use the amendment that was moved in another place to remove tenants and obtain capital gains at their expense. I hope that we shall receive a clear sign that it is the Government's intention to protect tenants who come within the terms of the 1976 Act.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: As a former farm manager who had some responsibility for farm workers' housing including tied cottages, I believe that there is a housing crisis in the countryside. Many tied cottages have become extremely valuable to the owners because there is no real alternative accommodation. Owners want agricultural workers to get out of their houses so that they can put them on to the housing market in rural areas.
  When an agricultural worker takes a job, he will normally sign a contract of employment. Provision is often made in a contract for the worker to live in property that is owned by the farmer or landowner. I do not want agricultural workers to have less security of tenure than they enjoy now. In days gone by, many enlightened landlords ensured that the widows of farm workers who had perhaps worked on an estate or large farm for 30 or 40 years or more could remain in their cottages for the rest of their lives.
  We are dealing with relatively low-paid workers and, because of the reduction in local authority housing stock as a result of the right-to-buy legislation, particularly in rural areas, there is often no alternative accommodation for farm workers who have lost the tenancies of tied cottages. Will the Secretary of State assure us that farm workers will be given the opportunity to remain within the tenancy until they can find an alternative tenancy in the locality?
  In days gone by, when tenants of tied cottages changed their jobs, there was always local authority housing. Such opportunities no longer exist, yet it is important that such a tenant moves on because another farm worker may well need the house. The lack of alternative housing creates a serious situation for the agricultural worker and his family. I hope that the Secretary of State will say what security such tenants will have.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for drawing attention to the importance of rural housing in England. I hope that my hon. Friend, who I know is proud of his English constituency, will not object to me, a Scot representing a Scottish constituency, taking part in this important debate on rural housing in England and Wales. After all, I live close to the English border. Indeed, I can see a number of rural houses in north Northumberland from my house.
  I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend refer to the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 which was enacted under the previous Labour Government when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was

  409
  the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Happily, he was able to steer that important piece of legislation through Parliament, affording some protection to tenants in tied housing in England and Wales.
  The sad irony is that that Labour Government were not able to put similar legislation on the statute book for Scotland. My hon. Friend was able to protect farm workers in England and Wales, but in Scotland farm workers still have to cope with the old oppressive tied housing system, under which it is all too easy for tenants and their families to be evicted.
  I am disturbed to hear that the amendment could undermine the protection that has been made available for tenants of tied housing in England and Wales. The 1976 Act was an important development in respect of such employees. It was said in another place that this provision was intended to deal with the problem of non-paying guests in farm cottages. Given the terms of contract to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred, a high proportion of farm workers could be described as non-paying guests in the sense that they do not pay rent—but they give something in lieu of rent, by selling their labour very cheaply.
  The agricultural wages boards set wages far too low, and all too many farmers, in England and Wales as well as in Scotland, pay only the basic wage. Their employees are provided with "free" accommodation as a perk, if it may
  410
  be so described. It is often not really free, because the employees often pay dearly for what is often very bad accommodation by selling their labour far too cheaply. It is both offensive and misleading to suggest that such tenants are non-paying guests. They pay through the nose, or, more appropriately, by the sweat of their brows. Easing the eviction of tenants and their families in those circumstances would be an intolerable step for the House to sanction.
  10.45 pm
  A further problem will face the tenants of tied accommodation who work in farming and in other industries, with the introduction in Scotland of the poll tax in April. Hitherto, employers have paid the rates due on tied accommodation on behalf of their employees. In future, there will be a tax on the occupiers rather than on the property. There is no guarantee that tenants will have any more in their wage packets, yet they will suddenly find themselves having to pay the poll tax, while the farmer no longer has to pay any rates. The farmer will end up better off while his employees will be worse off.
  I am profoundly disturbed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, this provision could represent another retrograde step by the Government and undermine the already weak position of farm workers in rural areas. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to several disturbing aspects of rural poverty and housing pressure in England and Wales, and I hope that the House will give them serious consideration.
  Mr. Alan Roberts: Phrases such as "wicked Tory Government" trip off the lips very easily, but we believe that in this instance the Government may be mistaken in introducing legislation based on the concept of someone having a bare licence—for example, for putting up a friend who sleeps on the floor and where no money changes hands. However, this provision inadvertently applies also to tied tenants, and particularly to those in rural areas. We hope that the Government will consider all the points that have been made by my hon. Friends and by others in respect of this proposal and the related Lords amendments.
  My hon. Friends have made it clear that they are very concerned about housing problems in rural areas, about tied tenants, and about the homelessness that will be created as a result of this Bill. It will be difficult for those affected to be rehoused—especially since the supply of public sector accommodation has dried up under the right-to-buy provisions. Rural property acquired under that legislation has not been replaced by either the public or private sector, and considerable housing stress and poverty now exists.
  That is true not just of inner city constituency such as that which I represent. The local authority area of Sefton in which my constituency is situated embraces many rural as well as city areas, and as a consequence I am approached with problems by people from the rural parts of Sefton which I pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board our genuine concern and will respond by accepting our proposals.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I congratulate Opposition Members on taking us for a delightful rural ride. We have been over the questions of the community charge, rural poverty and many other aspects of an important problem concerning rural housing, which I found fascinating to listen to. We were given the view from Brecon Beacons, the view of the Cheviot hills from East Lothian, and even the view of rural Sefton, which was a touching picture.
  I have to say, however, that these attempts to spin out debate are not relevant to the amendment. The amendment is entirely concerned with whether those who pay no rent—I emphasise the words "no rent"—should be enabled to be got rid of without a court order. The reason for the amendment was correctly described by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) as being not to apply court order powers to non-paying guests. From that it was deduced that there must be many others who paid no rent to whom it would apply. I am delighted to tell hon. Members that tenants under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 will not be affected by the amendment; nor will assured agricultural occupants, under the Bill. The whole agricultural sector is not affected by the amendment. I can therefore give hon. Members the assurances that they seek.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments 34 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 34

  NEW PROTECTED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCIES RESTRICTED TO SPECIAL CASES
  Lords amendment: No. 37 in page 25, line 50, after "court" insert
  412
  "considered that, in the circumstances, the grant of an assured tenancy would not afford the required security and, accordingly".
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 44 and amendment (a) thereto.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment (a), in line 2, leave out
  ?would not afford the required security'
  and insert
  'shall not be treated as affording the required security by reason only of the fact that the tenancy is an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988'.
  These amendments relate to clause 34, which is the first clause in chapter V of part I of the Bill.
  Mr. Ridley: Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 42 deal with cases in which a landlord is seeking possession of his property on one of the grounds involving the provision of suitable alternative accommodation and the court directs that the tenancy of that alternative accommodation will be a protected or a secure tenancy, as appropriate. The amendments make it clear that in directing that the new tenancy will be a protected or a secure tenancy the court does so because it does not believe that an assured tenancy would offer the required security. The amendments thus clarify the position and guide the court in coming to a decision.
  Amendment (a) is presumably based on the argument that the Lords amendments do not go far enough to meet the commitment that was indeed given in another place that the issue would be clarified, but we are entirely satisfied that our amendments meet the stated objective. It is true that they do not replicate the wording of the comparable provision in the Housing and Planning Act 1986. The wording of the 1986 Act was part of a consequential amendment to schedule 15 of the Rent Act. The wording of this Bill is part of a description of the types of tenancies which can be protected tenancies after commencement. In both cases, although the wording is different, the effect is that the court is not automatically to assume that an assured tenancy gives the required protection.
  I can assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), despite the length, depth and breadth of feeling, that the provision as it now stands achieves what is needed, and his amendment is unnecessary.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. It is true that the concession for which we pressed in Committee received that response in the other place where it was reported in column 1457 of the House of Lords Hansard that the Minister said that the Government "accept the principle" behind the Opposition amendments seeking this change. On Third Reading, the Minister said that he had been advised that the Government amendments would meet our concerns. However I wish to press the Minister to ask him a forthright and open question. Will it still be open to a county court to decide that an assured tenancy per se is equivalent in terms of security of tenure to a Rent Act tenancy, regardless of the contractual terms drawn up

  413
  between the tenant and the landlord? It would seem that the court is free to fuse the two, but in fusing the two, tenants' rights will be weakened.
  If I may refer to other amendments in this group, it seems that the Government consistently have rejected an appeal for a housing association tenancy. That proposition was lost by a mere 18 votes in the other place. However, there are differences between a secure tenancy and an assured tenancy which should not be blurred at this stage. The blurring of those differences means that some tenants will lose out. The issue particularly affects all new housing associations tenants, including any who may transfer under housing association trusts that are set up by the Government, or any public sector tenancies that are transferred to housing associations, as their security may be diminished when someone moves.
  I urge the Minister to spell out that that will not be the case and give the courts clear guidance to ensure that the distinction is not fused. Otherwise, when the Bill is enacted, this section will be tested by case law and inevitably tenants will have to go through the courts to prove the difference between a secure tenancy and an assured tenancy.
  I hope that, even at this eleventh hour, the Minister will reconsider the case for allowing a housing association tenancy. Housing associations have made it plain that they do not want to be considered simply as existing in the private sector. They are between the private sector and the public sector, and tenants of registered housing associations currently enjoy security of tenure and the package of rights that has become known as the tenants' charter. Those rights were introduced by this Government in the Housing Act 1980 and further Acts including the Building Act 1984 have received support from housing associations, local authorities and institutes of housing. Housing association tenants need to be clear that their rights will not be diminished, particularly with the prospect of public sector tenants moving to housing associations. Those rights include their right of tenure, their right of exchange, their right to take in lodgers, their right to sublet part of their house, their right to repair and improve their dwelling and their right to information about their tenancies.
  I hope that the Government will reconsider the proposition that there should be a distinct and separate housing association tenancy. The amendments should not leave a fudge in the Bill so that tenants are unclear as to their rights and have to resort to the courts for definitions to find out the terms of their tenancies.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The title of clause 35—
  "Removal of special regimes for tenancies of housing associations etc."—
  shows that we are entering important territory. I shall not repeat the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), with which I agreed. When it comes to a vote, I and my hon. Friends will support the Labour party's amendment to the Lords amendment, which raises several matters that the Secretary of State did not deal with.
  11 pm
  As is clear from the Bill, Government policy has now broken the consensus about the role of housing associations. That has created enormous uncertainty in the
  414
  housing association movement. The Secretary of State will know of the long debates we had in Committee about the status of these associations. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) tried at first to claim that they were public sector bodies: they are not. Labour Members—and all other hon. Members—agreed that they were not. [Interruption.] They are not public sector bodies, and the sooner the Labour party realises that, the better.
  The then Minister for Housing tried to imply that housing associations were private sector bodies. Eventually, I got him to agree that they were not that, either. Nevertheless, they are being forced into a private sector regime. The housing association movement is unhappy about that. It has always seen its role as providing social housing for people who, according to the evidence of the latest survey, are on incomes just above social security levels and are in need of such housing.
  I understand that the Prime Minister is now giving some encouragement to the idea of housing associations being perceived as private sector. I understand that she no longer wants the phrase "social housing" to be used; she wants this sector to be known as "subsidised housing". She is not in favour of housing associations being thought of as providing social housing. She wants it clearly stated that housing associations will be subsidised by housing association grant, and hence by Housing Corporation money—hence by public, taxpayers' money. If all that is true, and the Minister confirms it, it is very worrying and will be the first admission of such a state of affairs by the Government. Will this new terminology be heard after the Bill becomes law?
  If what I understand is correct, it is a reflection of the Government's main motive in housing matters: gradually to reduce subsidy, without which the housing association movement cannot prosper.
  This is Catch-22: the Secretary of State and his junior Minister have said that they need housing associations for their plans for the demunicipalisation of local government housing to succeed. I concede that more grant was allocated to the Housing Corporation in last week's Autumn Statement. If the corporation receives substantially more money in coming years to cope with the expected massively increased demands that will be placed on it, it should in theory be possible for that money to filter down to fund the growth of housing associations. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome that, as they regard housing associations as having a good record and representing a worthy third component in the provision of rented housing in Britain.
  The housing associations are clearly saying that they do not want to be dragged up market. They want to continue to provide for their traditional client groups—mainly people at the bottom of the income scale. They will not be able to expand under the policies that the Government are forcing them to adopt without abandoning many of those groups. They are in a dilemma. They are being told that they must expand, yet at the same time subsidy is being reduced and private sector money is being encouraged to come in. I do not object to private sector involvement in itself, but without sufficient subsidy—in London that means 75 or 80 per cent., if not 100 per cent.—most housing associations will not expand. They will certainly not be able to expand to pick up the increasing number of people on low incomes who will need rented housing and who will not find it in the private sector. In theory, those

  415
  on housing benefit should be able to find it, because housing benefit should cover the rents, but we know from previous debates that that will not happen in practice.
  If the housing association movement does not get the subsidy that it needs, it will not expand its operations but will prefer to continue on its present scale, housing the same people as it houses now. It will not fulfil the role that the Government have repeatedly said they wish it to fulfil.
  After a year of debate, the Government still have not accepted the legitimate and reasonable wishes of the housing association movement or heeded the experienced voices of those in that movement. If they continue to fail to heed them—I say this more in sorrow than in anger—plans to expand the housing association movement may fail.
  Those who have worked in the housing association movement know what they are talking about. They know which client group they want to serve and the criteria that have to be met if they are to do so. By their intransigence the Government will ensure that their policies for what most of us are not unhappy to call "social housing" will fail. I believe that there should be social housing; I am also happy for it to be called partnership housing. We need housing, provided in part with public funds, to meet the need of a particular client group. It would alleviate the housing associations' fears to some extent and reassure their tenants and prospective tenants if the Secretary of State—at the eleventh hour both literally and constitutionally—would give them greater encouragement.
  I propose to press the Secretary of State once more on the question of what will constitute an affordable rent. On the basis of public assurances given by the Government so far, there seems to be absolutely no reason why they should not accept that affordable rents should be built into the regime that they are planning. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have come up with wording that suggests that they will impose on the Housing Corporation a duty to impose on housing associations a rent regime limiting rents in that sector to amounts that people in reasonable and low-paid employment can manage.
  We need a statement from the Secretary of State to the effect that there will be sensible and affordable rents, as was orginally suggested in the consultation paper. In Committee, on Report, in the tenants' guarantee, in the Housing Corporation document about criteria for tenants' choice landlords and in the other place it has been implied that rents will be affordable. That was never defined and a year later we still do not know what it means.
  Will the Secretary of State define, at today's prices, what an affordable rent for those on low pay would be? Would it be 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the average manual wage in a given region? Without a figure, the phraseology is almost meaningless. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a definition today. If not, will he give an undertaking that the concept of affordable rents will be defined in good time for the Housing Corporation and housing associations to understand what it means? The Housing Corporation also needs to know so that it can calculate the amount of income coming in and advise associations accordingly.
  As the Secretary of State knows, the housing associations have made it clear that they want explicit provisions as to what rents are affordable, but the Government have so far resisted that request. At this late stage, we ask the Government to answer the question put
  416
  to them by reputable housing professionals who know the low incomes of their clientele, the cause that the associations were set up to serve, and the massive pressure for affordable housing that there will be in the weeks and months ahead. Can we not have a guarantee on the face of the legislation that substance will be given to oral assurances about what exactly an affordable rent is?
  The housing association movement began its consideration of the Government's proposals both troubled and anxious. The Government made various promises about tenants' guarantees and then resiled from them, so the guarantees are now less substantial than the housing associations were led to believe. The shape of the Bill has changed before their—and our—very eyes. I make this request to the Secretary of State because I am prepared to accept that he wants an expansion of housing associations and that that would be a good thing for the country. Now is the time to give the housing associations the reassurance that they seek and, if he can, to state that it is untrue that the Prime Minister and the Government wish to see an end to the defined concept of social housing. Can he assure us that the Government are willing to continue to use the term and to give people in such housing the same respect and status as anyone else, and that they do not intend to start defining housing associations as part of the private sector and social housing as subsidised housing and thus seek to go down the slippery slope which eventually leads to less and less grant, higher and higher rents and less and less ability to meet real housing need?
  Mr. Winnick: I support the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who, I believe, described himself earlier as a Liberal.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There are two more here now.
  Mr. Winnick: We always admire those who do not seek to hide their true political feelings and affiliations. One of the hon. Gentleman's two hon. Friends who also describe themselves as Liberals—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—was an unsuccessful candidate for the leadership of his party. I am sorry about that, but I was not given a vote.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the tenants.
  Mr. Winnick: Yes, we shall be coming to that in due course, but on future occasions we shall certainly know the party colours and affiliations of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
  I support what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said not just because he told us earlier that he was a Liberal but because of the need for affordable rents to which he referred in his speech.
  One danger is that, because of the Government's allocation of grant, housing associations will have to charge rents that are virtually market rents—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to talk, they should go to the Tea Room. Alternatively, they should be silent and take part in the debate later. This is a crucial issue. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I find it disquieting that Conservative Members are not taking part in the debate. It is almost as though they were in Committee. Do they not have constituents who are concerned about these matters? Three Conservative Members are still engaged in private conversation. One is the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). He is

  417
  not paying any attention to the debate or to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is engaged in some intrigue within the Tory party—
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Conversations are taking place in different parts of the Chamber. We must get back to the amendment.
  Mr. Winnick: I was pleased to hear you say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I should be only too pleased to return to the amendment. Conservative Members are—
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us are interested in the view of the Conservative party on these matters. If there is any chance that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is discussing them and the relevant amendment, we should be most interested to hear what he has to say. If any of his colleagues choose to enlighten the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us first hear what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has to say.
  Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me when we were actually discussing the amendment? It has not been mentioned yet.
  Mr. Winnick: I do not think that such reflections on the Chair really help our proceedings. It is rather unfortunate that the Secretary of State wants to make some cheap debating points. We are inviting contributions from Conservative Members on the issues before us.
  What the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said is of crucial importance because the housing associations take responsibility for housing those in need. A survey in 1988 by the National Federation of Housing Associations showed that the four most common reasons for rehousing were overcrowding, ill health, leaving temporary accommodation and poor housing conditions. Those accounted for 46 per cent. of all the reasons for rehousing.
  If the housing associations are fulfilling a role—to a large extent because the local authorities cannot carry out their usual traditional housing responsibilities—we must be concerned, and I hope that it concerns the Secretary of State, if the changes in the grant allocation mean that housing associations will have to charge rents that people in need, those whom they are trying to help, cannot pay.
  Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments are mainly technical, dealing with various matters arising from the transition of an existing Rent Act regime to the new assured tenancy regime to be established under the Bill. Can you explain to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how a wide-ranging debate on housing associations can be relevant to the amendments?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must admit that this is all rather confusing. I have been trying hard to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the amendments and it is difficult to do so. I hope that he and other hon. Members will now address their remarks to the amendments before the House.
  Mr. Soley: Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that nobody wants hon. Members to
  418
  stray out of order, but the Secretary of State is wholly wrong in saying that these are mainly technical amendments. They are not. They are deep and wide ranging, and have implications for rent levels. I would think that so long as the debate is about that it will be in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I found it hard to relate the earlier remarks to these amendments and I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North will now relate his remarks directly to them.
  Mr. Winnick: Obviously, I abide by whatever you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would have thought that security matters relate to the level of rent, as do housing associations which must decide on rent in the light of their grant allocation. As my remarks are in line with those of previous speakers, I trust that they are in order. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Ministers to make those sounds. If they want to sleep they can go elsewhere.
  I listed the group of people that housing associations have been assisting. We must consider the level of rents and how it will be possible for those in need to be assisted in the way that those in need are being helped by housing associations now. It is extremely important that the security given to a tenant is the same as that provided by the Rent Act 1977. That is not the case at present. Any form of insecurity causes anxiety.
  We are trying first and foremost to establish the level of security and the way that courts will decide. I hope that when the Minister replies he will respond to our points about housing associations because they raise important matters for those who will seek to be rehoused by housing associations. As local authorities are no longer able to assist people because no building is taking place, it is all the more reason why some protection should be given to those who cannot afford market rents.
  The crux of the argument which seems to puzzle Conservative Members is simply: what will the Government do for those who cannot afford a mortgage or market rents, who do not stand a chance of being rehoused by a local authority and who are likely no longer to be assisted by a housing association because of the level of rents which they will be forced to charge? Surely those are legitimate points which must concern us, even if, unfortunately, they do not concern Conservative Members. I am sure that I am supported in that by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is to be congratulated. He has driven the Secretary of State from the Chamber. The fox has gone to ground, leaving his rather bedraggled pup to mind the lair, and by the time we have finished with him tonight, he will look even more bedraggled.
  Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman should get the zoological species correct. Foxes have cubs, not pups.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) forgets that we are dealing with the Housing Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) at least got the lair right.
  Mr. Boateng: Whether it be cub or pup, we are dealing with an animal that has four legs and is looking increasingly bedraggled and uncertain without the intrusive presence of the Secretary of State. At 11.25 pm

  419
  we should not be debating the species to which the Under-Secretary belongs. He is all too revealing in the shape that he takes before us, and we do not want to enter into a semantic argument about whether he is a cub or a pup. He is at bay, which is all that matters.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) would not wish to mislead anyone reading the record of this debate. He may have conveyed the impression that the Secretary of State, having graced our proceedings throughout the night, had just left the Chamber. He looked in for only a comparatively short time.
  Mr. Boateng: My right hon. and learned Friend is, once again, right. The record should show the extent of the Secretary of State's appearances in the debate. The record should show that Ministers, recumbent on the Front Bench, have from time to time been heard to mutter and mumble comments about relevance and sticking to the amendment. Among those Ministers, a particularly spirited response—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may mumble something about sticking to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for a little over three minutes, but has not referred to the amendment. I hope that he will do so quickly.
  Mr. Boateng: I am suitably chastened. I was trying to set the context of the amendment.
  The drafting of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 44 is simple enough. We wish to insert the word "secure." What could be less threatening? Amendment No. 44 has received a warm welcome from Labour Members. It adds to the circumstances in which a housing association can grant a secure tenancy with a fair rent. That is a good in itself, because the Bill seeks destructively to undermine the true role of housing associations in the provision of houses for those who need them. Amendment (a) seeks to redress the balance.
  The former Minister for Housing and Planning used to visit hon. Members' constituencies—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Whipping up apathy.
  Mr. Boateng: The Minister seldom managed to convince his audiences, but he suggested to the housing association movement that when the Bill was passed it would have a new role to play. That is why the amendment is so important. For a moment, we feared that it might be possible for him to separate the housing association movement from the local authorities and communities which they were set up to serve. That was the purpose. The Minister was not out whipping up apathy for the fun of it or simply seeking to establish a reputation as an industrious Minister of State. If his intention was to retain that position, he failed because he did not survive the Bill, just as a number of us predicted. Perhaps the current incumbent is not much longer for the portfolio either, but we will not speculate. We shall return to the amendment and see why it is so important.
  11.30 pm
  The amendment preserves the traditional and historic role of the housing association movement. It should not be used to undermine local authorities or the public provision of housing, secured through the ratepayers and taxpayers. It should complement the local authorities. That was
  420
  recognised by the housing association movement. That is why the Minister failed in his primary objective to disengage the housing association movement from the local authorities and communities which they serve.
  To make sure that that does not happen, even after the passage of the Bill, we have proposed the amendment, which provides that, where a housing association purchases a property containing a tenant with a statutory or protected tenancy, the association can grant that tenant a secure tenancy with a fair rent. The amendment seeks to extend this so that, where an association takes over a property with a secure tenant, it will also be able to grant that tenant a secure tenancy at a fair rent. That is a modest enough proposal, but one to which Conservative Members may be resistant because it contains a particularly unpalatable truth for them. It underpins the need to recognise the special roles of housing associations as bodies to meet special needs.
  A number of groups will benefit from the amendment, including those who are disabled and require properties that are specially adapted and those who at a particular stage in their lives, whether through old age or youth, require special housing provision in terms of the management of their household or the kind of units available. Our vision is not of a society in which a person is fixed into one form of occupancy. One sees from one's constituency cases that old people find it particularly hard to maintain homes which are sometimes too big for them.
  Mrs. Mahon: I hope that I can flush the Minister out of his hole and get him to reply to a question which I have tabled and which I asked him earlier tonight. Why have the Government seen fit to sabotage the excellent scheme proposed by the Stoneham housing association for deprived young people? That housing association and my local authority would have provided 30 places in what is now an empty tower block. They would have helped to restore and bring that tower block back into use for housing. Because of the inadequacies of housing grants, we have not been able to repair that tower block. It is sad that that group of clients has been left virtually homeless.
  Mr. Boateng: Halifax is remarkable, not only by reference to the quality of its representation in the House but by reference to its capacity to produce an example for every aspect of the Bill. Whenever there is an amendment, there is always an example readily to hand from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). It must be a truly remarkable place in which to live, with its diverse problems and the breadth of its need for housing.
  I see that Brer Fox has returned to the lair. If he will pay attention for one moment, he will hear that what we are particularly concerned about in this amendment is that the sort of scheme that has been referred to in Halifax should be able to grow and develop. Our vision of housing provision is that people should be able to move into and out of appropriate housing throughout their lives. When they are young and making the transition from home into the private or public rented sector or even into owner-occupancy, guidance should be provided for them. As they grow too—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again moving away from the amendment.
  Mr. Boateng: Then I shall return to it. There is a stage in a person's life when Lords amendment No. 44 becomes

  421
  particularly relevant on account of the change in the nature of the tenancy because of the age of the tenant, his financial position or his health and general family circumstances. Such people may wish to move into housing association property. Lords amendment No. 44 should therefore be written into the Bill so that housing associations are able to make the necessary provisions for them. Without the amendment, housing associations will not be on hand and will be unable to meet their special needs.
  We know that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have received an overwhelming number of representations from the National Federation of Housing Associations. That has been a word of warning to them. The federation has asked the Government to enable the movement to grow in order to take advantage of the opportunities that the Government say they seek to provide by means of the Housing Corporation. Without the amendment, it will be unable to take advantage of those opportunities, which we believe ought to be provided. We ask the Government truly to liberate the housing association movement and allow it to play its role alongside local authorities in providing for the needs of our people.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been caught short on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 37. One lives and learns. I shall not be caught out on Lords amendment No. 76 and amendment (a) to it, but I shall give the Secretary of State his due on that one.
  The Secretary of State said that these are technical amendments. Some of them appear to be very technical and we need to ask questions about them. Lords amendment No. 40 attempts to ensure that protected shorthold tenants who have been granted tenancies before the Bill becomes law under the current arrangements for creating protected shorthold tenancies do not become assured tenancies or protected tenancies by virtue of the arrangements in this part of the Bill. That includes cases where the landlord does not serve the correct notices for creating a new style of assured shorthold tenancy.
  It is clear from these so-called technical amendments that the Government are prepared to create the most absurdly complicated sections and subsections to preserve the insecurity of protected shorthold tenancies.
  We shall not oppose amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40, but we believe that they demonstrate how much the Government are the party of the landlord and how they are prepared to frame legislation to ensure that landlords have a free hand. That has always been the philosophy behind the Bill. Although the Secretary of State may say that they are merely technical amendments, the philosophy behind them and the fact that the legislation becomes more complicated reveal the attitude and approach of the Government of the landlord.
  Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 deal with housing association tenancies and with fairly complicated hypothetical problems that may occur at some time if a secure tenant becomes a housing association tenant under the provisions of part IV. A council tenant who is at present secure under the provisions of the Housing Act
  422
  1985 may be bought up by a housing association under the provisions of the pick-a-landlord proposals. At that point, the tenant would become an assured tenant.
  But one must hesitate at that point. The Government are so anxious to preserve the right to buy that should the tenant exercise the right to buy his home at a discount and discover subsequently that his house was built to a defective design—perhaps the Bison system—the housing association can buy back the flat so that the owner-occupier does not have the headache of a useless asset on his hands. Under these provisions, that tenant then becomes a secure tenant—unlike his neighbours, who were not so foolish as to exercise the right to buy and who are merely assured tenants.
  The dice are always loaded, certainly with regard to the right to buy. The Government may say that they are just technical amendments, but when one understands the thought that went into them they reveal the hand of the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 are absurd.
  But perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me that my timing is wrong. Perhaps it is only when a tenant has exercised the right to buy before the estate or block is taken over by the new landlord that he can become a secure tenant when he sells his property back to his landlord. I should be most grateful if the Minister would answer that question and explain the amendments so that I may know whether my interpretation is correct. If it is wrong, the Secretary of State has a great body of experts round him who can tell us, through him, exactly what the amendments mean.
  To get a better understanding of these technical amendments, I thought that the best thing would be to turn to the debate in the other place. But when I read the Lords Hansard I saw no evidence that the Earl of Caithness understood the amendment. It was moved formally and there was no debate. So we still do not know precisely what the amendments are about and must struggle to interpret the amendments ourselves.
  Lords amendment No. 44 relates to clause 35, which falls in chapter V of part I. Chapter V is a complicated but crucial part of the Bill. It is the mechanism by which the Government intend to destroy current arrangements for the protection of tenants, so that the new regimes of the market place—the assured tenancy and the assured shorthold tenancy—can take over.
  Chapter V is entitled:
  "Phasing out of Rents Acts and other Transitional Provisions."
  Clause 35 states that a tenancy cannot be a housing association tenancy unless it falls into one of several exceptions, which include where the tenancy was granted as part of a contract formed before the Act became law, where it is granted to the same person who before the grant was already a protected tenant of substantially the same accommodation, and where the new tenancy arises from the tenant having to move as a result of a court order which states that the new tenancy is equivalent to "suitable alternative accommodation".
  11.45 pm
  Lords amendment No. 44 sets out another exception to the number of new housing association secure tenancies that can be granted. When a housing association buys a property in the private sector which already has protected

  423
  tenants—the so-called sitting tenants—in it, the tenants are permitted to become secure tenants under the Housing Act 1985 rather than new style assured tenants.
  I am obviously in favour of the amendment. It seems eminently sensible and fair. We all know that housing associations do a great deal of good when they intervene in the wholly inadequate private sector, buy privately rented property, improve it, convert it and let it to people in need of low-cost rented housing. The Government want to make all publicly provided accommodation housing association accommodation, and to take it all away from local authorities. We heard some interesting exchanges on that subject between my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the Under-Secretary of State.
  We do not want to hinder housing associations that want to take up property in the private sector and improve it.
  Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend know that the survey conducted by the National Federation of Housing Associations, which I quoted earlier, shows that the average net weekly household income of people who were given accommodation by housing associations was £77·50, compared with average national earnings of £224? The average net weekly income for households with nobody in work is £58·99 and the average for households with one person in work is £115. Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures illustrate the type of problem we are dealing with? Perhaps the Secretary of State does not realise its seriousness. People now being assisted by housing associations are in the main, though not exclusively, on small incomes. To the extent that housing associations will be forced to charge something near the market rent, the people I have described cannot be helped.
  Mr. Banks: I agree. One of the insidious things about the Bill is the way in which the role of housing associations is being changed. It is clear from the submissions that the Government received from housing associations that the associations do not like that.
  There are times when I do not understand Conservative Members. Either they have no knowledge of what it is like in the bottom league or they have not attempted to find out or—worse—they know but do not care. We all have decent homes. None of us can be compared with the people who will be caught out by the Bill. All Conservative Members are fairly comfortable, and some are living in the lap of luxury. Good luck to them, I suppose.
  Mr. Winnick: I would not go as far as that.
  Mr. Banks: I am trying to be as generous as I can. Conservative Members do not have to experience housing difficulties and they do not understand what they are all about. When they move their amendments without being aware of the impact that they will have on those who are in the poorest sections of our society, it is not suprising that we become angry and embittered towards the Government. To be frank, we do not believe a word that they say. I wish that they would make more attempts directly to learn for themselves how badly off some people are in the private sector and in many parts of the public sector.
  When considering Lords amendment No. 44, we must remember that housing associations are seeking to buy and improve privately owned property so that they can provide
  424
  some decent housing. As always, I turned to Newham to ascertain the state of houses in the privately rented sector, and I can report that it is appalling. The 1985 house condition survey on properties in Newham has demonstrated that the fabric of our private sector housing stock is becoming unfit at a faster rate than it is being repaired.
  Most of the 45,000 dwellings that make up the private sector stock in Newham are pre-1919 properties. They are coming to the end of their useful life unless major renovation is carried out in the near future. It seems that 57 per cent. of private sector dwellings in the borough are unsatisfactory, which equates to 26,000 dwellings. The results of the survey told us that 83 per cent. of private rented dwellings were unsatisfactory and that 52 per cent. of owner-occupied dwellings were unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory means unfit and/or lacking basic amenities and/or in serious disrepair. No Member of this place has to live in such housing.
  Disrepair is becoming worse in Newham. In 1981, a total of 37 per cent. of private rented dwellings were unfit—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a long way from the amendment.
  Mr. Banks: I am directing myself to Lords amendment No. 44 and the role of housing associations within the terms of the amendment. The associations buy inadequate private sector property, or inadequate privately rented property, and improve it. That is within the terms of the amendment. I must accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am trying only to demonstrate the enormity of the associations' task under the amendment and of their role generally. They have a major problem to deal with in Newham.
  I hope that the Government will accept Lords amendment No. 44. If they fail to do so, the role of the housing associations could be undermined.
  It is fairly common practice for associations to buy tenanted properties, especially in a period of rising property prices which lead to increasing difficulties for associations that wish to buy properties and improve them within the cost constraints set by the Housing Corporation. Tenanted properties sell at cheaper prices. Indeed, some would sell for about half their vacant possession value. This means that they are attractive to property speculators. They buy them, winkle out the tenants and sell them with vacant possession.
  It is important that housing associations should be encouraged to buy in this market. The properties can be bought at reasonable prices and converted to achieve a housing gain for the housing association movement. For example, a house in multiple occupation with one sitting tenant can be converted into three flats, which means that there is a housing gain. Housing that is sold with sitting tenants is usually run down, badly managed, with inadequate repairs and fire precautions. The tenants, as I know from my own experience, are often old and vulnerable people who have been unable, for one reason or another, to get a foothold in the owner-occupation market. It requires the sensitive handling of the housing association to achieve that repair and improvement without too much distress or disruption to the vulnerable tenant.

  425
  If Lords amendment No. 44 is accepted, the home of a private protected tenant which is bought by a housing association can become a secure tenancy. If it is not accepted, that tenancy will become an assured tenancy under the new rules set out in part I.
  One might ask what is the difference between a secure tenancy, a protected tenancy and an assured tenancy. It is a difficult question. Many people in my borough are asking those questions all the time. I wonder how many Members of this House or the other place know.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is this debate relevant to properties owned by the London and Quadrant housing association in areas of my hon. Friend's constituency such as Disraeli road, where I happen to know properties are being developed and put on the market? Is it important to people living in such property?
  Mr. Banks: It certainly is. I think that my hon. Friend knows that that housing association is located in my constituency. My hon. Friend should perhaps admit a certain interest. However, I shall pass over that. It is not the sort of interest that would infringe his right to speak in this place. I think that my hon. Friends know what that interest is and we must congratulate him on having such an intelligent member of his family working for that housing association and living in that area.
  Let me return to the differences between a secure tenancy, a protected tenancy and an assured tenancy. They always sound alike. Why should not a tenant in the situation that I described become an assured tenant rather than a secure tenant?
  Mr. Winnick: Could it be that the lack of interventions from Conservative Members—not one Conservative Member has spoken since the proceedings began—is related to the fact that quite a number of them have substantial property interests and simply do not want to reveal them because many of them will gain as a result of the Bill becoming law?
  Mr. Banks: That may well be the case. It would be useful if Conservative Members could join in the debate. It is supposed to be a debate. It is not, of course, and nor was it in Committee. That is one reason why I desperately want to have this place televised. I want people to see exactly what goes on in this place. I know that Conservative Members are just sitting around waiting for the next Division, hoping that it will be sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Faulds: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend into any irrelevance, but is it not likely that if we were to have the disastrous intrusion of the cameras into this place, the political affiliations of most of the people who own the television companies involved in that would, like the popular press, try to defend all the interests of Conservative Members? The television companies will take the greatest trouble—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of that has anything to do with Lords amendment No. 44. Can we get back to secure or assured tenancies?
  Mr. Banks: I accept immediately what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always prepared to give way to may
  426
  hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). It is so good to have him here at a time other than Prime Minister's Question Time.
  Mr. Battle: It may be that we do not see the televising of the House of Commons in terms of censorship, but I am certain that many housing associations have lobbied Conservative Members on this issue and they will have to answer to their constituents for not being able to assure them that the housing associations will not be prejudiced by the Bill.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes another good point, for, in speaking to Lords amendment No. 44, one realises what is happening in this place and with this Bill, against the interests of those who are desperately in search of housing.
  Many of these amendments are so complicated and confusing that it is hardly surprising that many outside the House find it difficult to establish their rights. One begins to get cynical, and I resist that as much as I can, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know. None the less, one reaches a point where such obfuscation appears to be deliberate, to ensure that people desperately in need of housing can never find out what are their real rights.
  12 midnight
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend refers to the differences between an assured and a secure tenancy, and comments that perhaps Conservative Members are voting for this legislation because they have property and wish to see a change in the nature of tenancies in order to exploit their own tenants more. Will my hon. Friend comment on the obligation that is placed on all right hon. and hon. Members, under a requirement of "Erskine May", not to vote for any legislation that will give them a financial advantage? It may be that we shall see a diminution in the numbers voting against the amendment.
  Mr. Banks: The passage of time will lead to a diminution in the number of Conservative Members voting on the amendment. Nevertheless, I know that I can count on my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to point out to any recalcitrant Conservative Members what are their obligations and responsibilities, for I know that he is a keen student of the pecuniary interest register. He probably has the mark of every Conservative Member currently sitting on the Government Benches.
  I return to the differences between protected, secure and assured tenancies. They all sound as though they are good things, but it is here that the Bill is deceitful. There are many similarities between a protected and a secure tenancy. It will not do an individual any harm changing from a protected to a secure tenancy, but there is a huge difference between a protected or secure tenancy and an assured tenancy, but that is what the Government intended all the way along.
  The rents of protected tenants are set by the rent officer at fair levels that disregard the scarcity of accommodation. Under the present housing association arrangements, the same regime of the rent officer setting fair rents applies. However, if there is a change to an assured tenancy, the rent will be fixed by the rent assessment committee at market levels.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the fair rent regime, which is being undermined by Lords amendment No. 44, does not provide that much protection? If a tenant improves a property owned by his landlord, the fair rent officer must take any such improvement into account when fixing the rent.
  The Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how any of those points can be raised under the amendments now before the House.
  Mr. Banks: I was about to say that I disagree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot disagree, I do not disagree, and I never shall disagree with you—though on this occasion I believe that I do.
  In the case of a protected tenant, there are a number of grounds on which a landlord can obtain possession. They are broadly similar to those shown in the Housing Act 1985 as grounds for possession against a secure tenant. One important element is that if a landlord wishes to seek possession on the grounds of a fault, where it is claimed by the landlord that the tenant is at fault in some way—for example, in not paying the rent—such grounds are discretionary and the landlord must show not only that the tenant is at fault but that it is reasonable that the court should make a possession order.
  Should the tenancy be changed to an assured tenancy, however, the position will be different. For the first time, under the Bill, one of the so-called "fault" grounds becomes a mandatory ground for possession. If a tenant is three months in arrears with his or her rent—even if the arrears are not the tenants's fault—the court has no choice but to make an order for possession. Being an assured rather than a secure tenant would make a considerable difference to the person concerned.
  As a protected tenant, a tenant in the private sector can currently pass on his or her tenancy twice, first to a spouse and then to a member of his or her family. Of course, the Government are proposing to change the rules, even for existing tenants, so that, although spouses can inherit a tenancy, members of the family can only do so—and it will be an assured tenancy—if they have lived in the accommodation for at least two years at the time of the tenant's death.
  The important issue is that succession rights can be passed on to members of the family as well as to the spouse. If a private tenant's home is then bought by a housing association—which is the subject of the Lords amendment—that tenant will become secure. Secure tenants have similar, although not identical, rights in regard to succession. They can pass on their tenancy only once, although it can be to a spouse or, if there is no spouse, to another member of the family who has been living in the accommodation for at least 12 months at the time of succession.
  Should the tenancy become an assured tenancy at the time of purchase, rather than a secure tenancy as suggested by the Lords amendment, there can be only one succession on death—and that to the spouse only. That is particularly hard on carers who move in to look after an elderly relative. Once the tenant dies, the carer, who may have devoted a good part of his or her life and attention to that relative, finds that as a reward for his labours at the same time as having to face up to a bereavement he must face the prospect of losing his home.
  Mrs. Mahon: The carer will often have also lost out on any kind of career, finding himself years later on a much reduced income. That is an added anxiety, which is making people stop to think, "Shall I do this, or do what I least want to do and throw an elderly or sick person on to the state?"
  Mr. Banks: That is an important point. The Government have talked about people being turned out of long-stay hospital beds and being looked after in the community. It sounds fine, but the Bill could penalise their carers, and that strikes me as disgraceful.
  I do not know whether the Under-Secretary is fully aware of that implication. We explained it in some detail in Committee, but of course he was not there at the time. He has a very tenuous grip on his present job. This is a bit of a graveyard for aspiring Conservative politicians. I do not wish the Minister any ill, because it is not in my heart to wish any Conservative Members ill. That is why I still hope that somewhere within their breasts beat hearts that may still be turned by our pleas. The Secretary of State, in particular, looks at me with that stony, skull-like look that almost belies the thought that he even has a heart. But I do not give up hope even for him at this stage.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He referred to graveyards. Another graveyard with which we have become familiar during the past 12 months is the graveyard where the Government put reports when they do not know what to do with them. The Griffiths report made exactly the same point as my hon. Friend. It recommended extremely strongly that a far better variety of care would be provided by close relatives within the family. However, this legislation is making it far more difficult for relatives who have to give up their jobs to look after sick parents or children. I have an extremely difficult case in my constituency where a young lady in her mid-20s is being evicted from her home, having given up her career to look after first her mother and then her father over something like a 10-year period. She has never worked, other than looking after her elderly relatives. That is the reward that such people will get if this measure becomes law.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and demonstrates the internal inconsistencies between the Government's stated intentions and the legislation that they bring before the House. That is why it is difficult for us to accept at face value almost anything that is said by Conservative Members.
  For the three reasons that I have already mentioned—rent, security and succession—we support the Lords amendments. The Government may not accept the argument, but not only is it better for tenants that they should become secure rather than assured tenants, but the loss of security faced by the tenant may undermine the potential relationship between the housing associations and their future tenants at the time of purchase.
  When housing associations are proposing to buy a property, they visit it, they take stock, measure it up, value it and talk to the tenants—unlike many private landlords who buy property in portfolios without ever talking to the people for whom it represents a home. One of the first questions that a tenant will ask a housing association is, "What will it mean for me?" If the housing association can reply, "You will become a secure tenant and, as a housing association tenant, you will have most of your rights that

  429
  you have now, together with some additional ones such as the right to information and consultation, the right to assign and the right to exchange", it is quite likely that that tenant will be keen to become a housing association tenant. [Interruption.] Shut up. I do not mind interventions from Conservative Members, but I find sedentary interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) who is sitting 3 ft away from me to my left, to be rather disconcerting. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, did a Conservative Member actually speak or was that a death rattle?
  If a housing association has to say to a prospective tenant, "You will become an assured tenant and we can charge you a market rent which may mean that your rent will go up by a factor of four and there are more ways in which we can get you out" it would be quite understandable if the tenants showed a degree of reluctance to have their homes taken over by the housing association. That is why I put it to the Secretary of State that it might well undermine the work of the housing associations in buying into the private rented sector and carrying out their excellent improvement work to the fabric of our deteriorating private rented stock if the Lords amendment were not allowed to stand.
  Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be a strange irony if the Government were not prepared to allow the Lords amendment to stand. They have supported housing associations as being a source of assistance from the private sector, as members of housing associations administer them often without any fee, simply as part of a voluntary contribution to society—the Lady Bountiful image that the Tories like to propound. If the Government do not allow the amendment to stand, they will be pushing aside the voluntary private sector and handing everything over to the private sector. Is that the general gist of my hon. Friend's remarks?
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has a ready grasp of the situation, which I am sure is better than that of the Secretary of State who diverted me for a moment, because, as my hon. Friend was speaking, the Secretary of State was excavating the contents of his left nostril. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Banks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was not a pretty sight. [Laughter.] I am finding it difficult to continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I turn now to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 44. Much as we like the Lords amendment, it can stand much improvement. Our amendment attempts to include among tenancies which can remain secure, and are granted after the Act comes into force tenants who become housing association tenants—[Interruption.] I think you should send for the nurse, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East seems to be in need of her.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Faulds: Yes, please.
  Mr. Banks: It would appear that my hon. Friend is having a seizure—
  Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend is such a comic that he must occasionally give the audience time to enjoy his quips. The more response he gets, the happier I should have thought he would be. I do not need a nurse now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I may in a little while.
  Mr. Banks: I know that this is often referred to as political theatre, but I had not realised that my hon. Friend had descended from the high dramatic roles he used to play to become a low comedy actor.
  As I was saying, our amendment includes among tenancies granted after the Act which can remain secure any tenants who become housing association tenants when a housing association buys a property with them as sitting tenants—this time not as sitting tenants in the private sector but as sitting tenants in the public sector. Our amendment relates to the provisions of part IV of the Bill which are the tenants' choice proposals.
  When the then Minister of State was selling us the proposals in part IV, he persuasively told us that no nasty, private developer-type landlords would prowl around trying to make a quick killing out of the proposals. We were prepared to take him at his word. We thought that he might represent the acceptable face of Tory extremism. But he gave so many undertakings and was so reasonable that he could not remain in the job. That is why he was sent to the Foreign Office. I am sure he is relieved to be far from the thorny problem which the Under-Secretary of State now finds himself facing. The hon. Gentleman's move to the Foreign Office was also a demonstration of how the Government treat Conservative Members who still have residues of heart, feelings and compassion: they move them on.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the former Minister had remained at the Department of the Environment he could have overridden some of the Secretary of State's objections, rendering our arguments unnecessary? It seems likely that the Secretary of State had a word with the Prime Minister to get the Minister transferred to another Department because there was a clear difference of opinion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to amendment No. 44.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend made the point that I made earlier. When we discussed this part of the Bill before, the Minister said that only nice, respectable, friendly housing associations would be out to buy under these proposals. He did not know then that the Charity Commissioners might take a dim view of this sort of activity when carried out by bodies that were registered as charities, excluding at a stroke many housing associations from buying under this legislation. But we expect the Government to change the charity rule at any moment, to suit their needs. That is how they behave every time they find an obstacle in their path. That is the new Conservative party. Any opposition—from its Back Benchers, from the Labour party or from society in general—gets kicked.
  Under part IV, a housing association may end up with a number of properties acquired from a local authority. As we have been told, some local authorities are already negotiating with housing associations to that end. In the amendment, we seek to ensure that if tenants end up as

  431
  housing association tenants they enjoy security of tenure at least equivalent to that which they had as secure tenants when the property was owned by the local authority.
  Housing associations broadly support the rights that secure tenants have under the tenants' charter. It is obvious that tenants would prefer to have more rights, rather than fewer; one hardly needs a PhD to work that out. The landlords want such a provision and the tenants want it, so why on earth are the Government refusing to allow tenants to keep rights that they have enjoyed as part of their contract since they first moved in, just because the landlord changes? No such dramatic change accompanies a change of landlord in the private sector. If one private landlord sells to another, the tenant keeps the rights that he has had since he first became a tenant of the property. Why should not the same arrangement occur in the public sector? When one public sector landlord sells to another—in this case a housing association—the tenant should keep the same rights.
  If the Government are not prepared to accept our amendment, it will be clearly revealed that they would like to destroy all public sector tenancies and move everyone into the hands of private landlords. I suspect that that is what they would like to do. Thank God they have not been able to do it so far, but if anyone were stupid enough to allow them back again, I fear that that is what would happen. I hope that the Government will accept our amendment.
  Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to those points relevant to the amendments before us. I congratulate Opposition Members on maintaining a filibuster of considerable standard—even, at times, of humour—wholly unrelated to the amendments. Opposition Members clearly showed a desire to remain here through the night, which cannot be justified by the content of the amendments.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) even went so far as to suggest that his constituency would benefit from a housing action trust, and talked about widespread dereliction and the poor condition of the housing stock. It was an interesting suggestion, which we shall consider.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for hours. I have only just started.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) got into a bit of a muddle. He seemed to demand continuing subsidy for housing associations. He will know from the public expenditure line to which he referred that that is our intention. With private finance coming in, that means a greatly expanded programme and, by definition, low rents. What else is the subsidy for? The very word "subsidy" would guarantee what the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  The hon. Gentleman then seemed to suggest that such houses should not be called subsidised. He must make up his mind whether he wants the subsidy or not.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has bored the House for hours already, but I shall nevertheless give way.
  Mr. Hughes: I asked the Secretary of State two simple questions. First, is he changing the wording from "social housing" to "subsidised housing" as a matter of policy? Secondly, I asked at what figure rents would be set after the subsidy, so that the housing association movement and its tenants might know what sort of figure we were talking about.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must not believe everything that he reads in the papers. He obviously picks up his information from gossip columns. He should really be a little more sophisticated than that. He said that now was the time when I should suddenly announce a new rents policy. I do not think that this is the time. I think that it is time to consider amendment No. 40, et alia, which are very limited, and well past the time when we should reach a conclusion on them.
  With regard to the points of substance that were raised, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) asked whether the terms would be better or worse in the circumstances that he described. It will, of course, depend on the terms of the contract whether an assured tenancy is deemed by the court to offer equivalent security or not. All contracts will be different and it will be for the courts to interpret the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked what amendment No. 40 does. I shall tell him. It provides that where, on or after the commencement of the Bill, a landlord grants a new assured tenancy to someone who has hitherto been a tenant under a protected shorthold tenancy or a tenancy superseding such a tenancy, that new tenancy will automatically be an assured shorthold tenancy without the landlord having to serve notice to that effect. Whether the tremendous edifice of rhetoric that the hon. Gentleman built upon that simple and limited proposition is justified, I leave it to the House to decide.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked what was the Government's view of Opposition amendment (a) to amendment No. 44. It would have the effect of extending the provision to include any existing secure tenancy taken over by a housing association and would thus run counter to the Government's intention throughout the Bill that secure tenancies taken over by a housing association as part of a transfer of stock by a local authority should become new style assured tenancies. The Opposition amendment would destroy that change to the new type of tenancy and I ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State refers to a filibuster, but he does not know what he is talking about. I will tell him what a filibuster is—it is 273 Lords amendments. What does the Secretary of State think that he is doing coming to the House for the second time with about 300 amendments to one hell of a mess of a Bill? So far, he has sacked one Minister and pushed another out—the one sitting beside him now will not last much longer—but the person responsible for the whole mess is the Secretary of State himself. He brought it upon himself and he deserves every bit of it because he has caused more anguish, fear and anxiety to tenants in both the private and the public sector than any other Minister at the Department of the Environment ever has. People are terrified of what he is doing to them. Yet he comes here talking about a filibuster.
  The Secretary of State has learnt nothing yet. So far he has learnt only that the House of Lords has given us 62

  433
  pages of serious amendments. We may occasionally drift into a moment of levity at this hour of the night, but the Secretary of State will see from Hansard that, apart from those brief moments of levity, there has been content to all our debates. The fact that he does not understand and does not care makes no odds because this wretched Bill will be a millstone around his and the Government's neck for years to come—and if he ever comes to the House with a Housing (Finance) Bill in anything like this kind of mess he will get exactly the same treatment and it will be equally well deserved.
  It seems that, even now, the Secretary of State does not understand the full import of amendment No. 44 and our amendment (a) to it. I realise that he understands one point, although it has not really been mentioned in the debate. The reason why the Government do not like our amendment is that it will stop them fiddling the figures. If they managed to get enough public housing—whether from housing associations or local authorities—into some form of assured tenancy, they could then start describing those tenancies as private lets and try to claim that the number of private lets was on the increase. Yet we know that everything that the Secretary of State has said about reviving the private sector has been wrong so far. There are now 600,000 fewer homes available for rent in the private rented sector than there were eight years ago. That decline is now more steep than at any time since the 1957 abolition attempt.
  The Secretary of State must deal with that failure. If he allows local authorities to keep properties, he cannot claim that the private sector is increasing. The rents of existing housing association tenants—and this is an important debate about rent levels—are set at fair rents determined by independent rent officers under the provisions of the Rent Act 1977. The Bill proposes that that regime should not apply to new housing association tenants, and in place of that protection future tenants will be part of the new deregulated system of assured tenancies at market rents that will apply to the private sector.
  12.30 am
  It is common ground between the Government and the voluntary housing movement that housing association rents should usually be lower than market rents. The Government have said that. They have also given public assurances—much as we may doubt their worth—that housing association rents should remain affordable for those in low-paid employment.
  As my hon. Friends have said to great effect, the fact is that housing associations feel vulnerable. What the Government have managed to do—which no other Government, Tory or Labour, have achieved—is to divide the housing association movement. Some fear that their colleagues in other housing associations will be pressurised to move upmarket. In particular, the removal of Rent Act protection coincides with the introduction of a new financial regime for housing associations that will require them to raise money in the private market for new developments. With the present record level of house and land prices and the extremely high cost of borrowing, the National Federation of Housing Associations feels, probably rightly, that it is likely that housing associations will be under undue pressure to raise rents beyond the
  434
  reach of low-income households. Yet the Government say that we must increase the supply of low-cost rented accommodation.
  That is the source of conflict between the Secretary of State and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The Secretary of State knows that more houses must be built for low-cost rent. The right hon. Member for Henley recognises that that means houses at the bottom of his garden. Yet neither of them is right. The problem is that the houses likely to be built in such circumstances are not likely to be for either low-cost rent or sale.
  The NFHA has studied examples of housing association tenants in different sorts of accommodation. It has considered their actual income and the rents that they currently pay, set by the rent officer, and the rent that they would have to pay if the new mixed funding scheme was operating. It also considered how housing benefit would help. The results were quite frightening. They showed that tenants in low-paid work would be paying up to 41 per cent. of their low wages in rent, even after housing benefit. One of the examples that I gave not long ago at a press conference was of a nurse who, with the new pay rise, would lose about 40 per cent. of her salary in rent. That is what we are talking about tonight. That is why we are angry. In several cases housing benefit does not even begin to help until 40 per cent. of income disappears in rent. Housing benefit does not make rent affordable to low-income households.
  The NFHA survey of new tenants—those who became housing association tenants this year—showed that their average weekly household income was £77·50. Where at least one person was in work, that rose to £115·64, just over half the national average of £224 a week. Housing association tenants overwhelmingly fall into the low-income category. Because of that, the NFHA argues that, on average, no more than one fifth of their income should be spent on rent. For a long time I have been arguing with many others that if an individual or family is paying more than one fifth of its income in rent or on a mortgage, it cannot do so for long without getting into serious economic trouble and other problems, including, in the worst examples, homelessness.
  Housing charities need to be mindful of their charitable trusts which require them to provide for those in necessitous circumstances in terms appropriate to their means. For them, the purpose of their activities is not merely the provision of housing—private landlords do that—but the relief of poverty through the provision of affordable housing. That is what united the Labour and Tory parties in 1974 when we set up the housing associations. It is this Secretary of State who is dividing the House on that issue.
  We should remember that 80 per cent. of housing associations are charities. Let us also remember that the Charity Commissioners are saying that it would not be a charitable act for housing associations to take over tenanted properties. Much as the DOE is leaning on them and trying to get them to change the ruling, every housing association knows that it must ask itself this question: if in the judgment of the Charity Commissioners it is not a charitable act to take over tenanted properties, why is it doing so? If the answer is that some bad management needs to be dealt with and the tenants want it, that is the only acceptable reason. Anything else smacks of financial opportunism and building a financial base, leading to the

  435
  sort of situation that exists with companies where one large organisation bids for a smaller one to expand its financial or geographical base. That is what housing associations are worried about and why small associations fear the large predator companies.
  There is no statutory backing for the Government's intention that rents should be affordable. The Bill abolishes the present statutory limitation to fair rent levels for new housing association tenants and puts nothing in its place, except the so-called tenants' guarantee, policed by the Housing Corporation. The guarantee's provisions are non-statutory and it is woefully weak on rent levels. It states of rents:
  "Where accommodation has been provided with the assistance of a public subsidy, or purchased from a public body, such as a local authority or New Town, housing associations are expected to set and maintain their rents at levels wit hin the reach of those in low-paid employment. This will often entail setting rents below market levels. Associations should not discriminate in their rent setting between tenants in receipt of housing benefit and others on below average incomes…In addition they are expected to take account of the size, amenities, situation and condition of the accommodation; and the need to cover the costs after subsidy, of loan charges, and management and maintenance including the requirement to make prudent provision for future repairs."
  Those two requirements will conflict and, in certain areas, can lead to the assured tenancy rents being higher than market rents.
  We have sought by previous amendments to strengthen the position of tenants. We want the Government to come up with some definition of affordability and to consult housing associations before doing so. They cannot go on passing the buck on rents back to housing associations when the grant levels they are offering imply massive rent rises.
  The Secretary of State once said to me that he recognised that he had a problem in the south of England because of the high market rents. I said that, if he paid housing benefit that would enable people on lower incomes to pay market rents in the south, the bill would come to billions of pounds. That still would not solve the problem because of the tapers and cut-offs in housing benefit, and the Secretary of State knows that. That is why the Government have gone back on their assumption that they can increase housing benefit. They realised that if they did they would cost themselves billions of pounds without even beginning to address the problem in the south of England. That is the mess that they have got themselves into, but it pales into insignificance compared with the mess of the people who have to pay that bill.
  That is why I have often said that we shall reintroduce rents set independently of the landlord, which means controls on rents. Not only would a Labour Government do that, but so will a future Tory Government because it will be impossible to use market rents without increasing housing benefit to the extent that the subsidy on housing benefit exceeds that of the subsidy to the person who is buying a house with mortgage interest tax relief. At present, the figure for that is about £5 billion. I do not believe that the Government will allow a £1 billion increase, let alone one of £5 billion. If that is right, the only course open to them is again to impose rent controls. The alternative would be rents that nobody could afford.
  Housing association tenants include some of the poorest households in the country, as the National Federation of Housing Associations survey shows. It
  436
  cannot be right to expect them to pay 30 or 40 per cent. in rent—in some cases more—from their already low incomes when they will have to pay rates, water charges and the poll tax. There must be some guidelines of affordability. This is an important matter and we shall divide the House on the amendment.
  Mrs. Mahon rose——
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division——
  Mrs. Mahon(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet and wanted to speak before you called the Division. Labour Members saw that. I have been waiting to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have put the Question and we are in the middle of a Division.
  The House having divided: Ayes 68, Noes 169.

  Division No. 482]

  [12.40 am

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McCartney, Ian

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Barron, Kevin

  Meale, Alan

  Battle, John

  Michael, Alun

  Beith, A. J.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Boateng, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Bradley, Keith

  Morley, Elliott

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Parry, Robert

  Clay, Bob

  Pike, Peter L.

  Clelland, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cohen, Harry

  Redmond, Martin

  Crowther, Stan

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Cryer, Bob

  Rogers, Allan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ruddock, Joan

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Dixon, Don

  Soley, Clive

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Vaz, Keith

  Faulds, Andrew

  Wall, Pat

  Fearn, Ronald

  Wallace, James

  Flynn, Paul

  Walley, Joan

  Fraser, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Winnick, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Howells, Geraint

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Allason, Rupert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Amos, Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Atkins, Robert

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burns, Simon

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burt, Alistair

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Butler, Chris

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Butterfill, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  437

  Carttiss, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Cran, James

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Mills, Iain

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Durant, Tony

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Neubert, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gow, Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Paice, James

  Gregory, Conal

  Patnick, Irvine

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Pawsey, James

  Grist, Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Price, Sir David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Raffan, Keith

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Harris, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Heddle, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hill, James

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Holt, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Irvine, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Jack, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Janman, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Thurnham, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Trippier, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Viggers, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Walden, George

  Knapman, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Knowles, Michael

  Ward, John

  Latham, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Watts, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Lilley, Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lord, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Maclean, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Mans, Keith

  Mr Tom Sackville.

  Maples, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr.Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr.Deputy Speaker.I wish to ask you a question about procedure during our deliberations on Lords amendments. On the previous batch of amendments there was a substantial and, I thoutht, reasoned debate setting
  438
  out the position of the Opposition and of the Government. The Secretary of State intervend in the debate—no doubt he has the right to choose when to speak—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) responded.
  The crucial rights in the House are not those of Front-Bench Members but those of Back-Bench Members,who must be able to defend the interests of their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon),who has been here for a long time—[Interruption.] She has certainly been here for far longer than the Conservative Members who are criticising her now. My hon. Friend got to her feet and tried to catch your eye, My.Deputy Speaker,because she wished to defend,as a Back-Bench Member should, the interests of her constituents.
  I do not criticisr you, Mr.Deputy Speaker, but at that stage you decided to call the Division. Surely it is your job to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members—
  Mr.Deputy Speaker: Order.It is not for any hon. Member to lecture me about my job. As the hon. Gentleman fairly conceded,we had a thorough debate on that it is not for right hon. and hon. Members to decide when they take part in a debate. Members take part in a debate when they are called to do so by the Chair.
  When the Secretary of State rose, no other hon. Member was trying to catch my eye. Therefor, I called the Secretary of State. Equally, when he sat down, only the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman was trying to catch my eye. Therefore, I called the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). It seemed to me to be following the conventions of the House that, after adequate dabate, the two Front-Bench spokesmen were winding up the debate. Therefore, at the conclusion of their remarks, I put the Question, consistent with the normal practices of the House.
  I add that the question of who is called to speak in a debate is a matter for thediscretion of the Chair.
  Mr.Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr.Deputy Speaker. You will recall that last night, during the debate on the private Bill, you were standing outside the Chamber watching the proceedings. A Conservative Member walked into the Chamber and was immediately called to speak by the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot comment or rule upon matters that occurred yesterday.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that you have called your Member of Parliament, perhaps you will allow me to help. There was a fairly lengthy debate on the previous group of important amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is relatively new to the House and, as a member of a minority—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] She is one of the few women Members of the House. Since no women Members spoke in the debate, and since we were discussing housing, I should have thought that it would have been a good idea to give someone who is relatively new and who stood up after the two Front-Bench spokesmen a chance to put her views on housing in Halifax. I hope that in future discussions on the Bill you will keep an eye out for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and call her to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know reasonable comment. I share his regret that the hon. Lady that that was not a point of order, but it was a perfectly

Clause 35

  REMOVAL OF SPECIAL REGIMES FOR TENANCIES OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ETC
  Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 27, at end insert—
  "(4) If, on or after the commencement of this Act, the interest of the landlord under a protected or statutory tenancy becomes held by a housing association, a housing trust, the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall prevent the tenancy from being a housing association tenancy or a secure tenancy and, accordingly, in such a case section 80 of the Housing Act 1985 (and any enactment which refers to that section) shall have effect without regard to the repeal of provisions of that section effected by this Act.
  (5) In subsection (4) above "housing association" and "housing trust" have the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985."
  1 am
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  Amendmetn (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 3,after first ?a?,insert ?secure?.—[Mr.Tony Banks.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 159.

  Division No. 483]

  [1.2 am

  AYES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McCartney, Ian

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Barron, Kevin

  Meale, Alan

  Battle, John

  Michael, Alun

  Beith, A. J.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Boateng, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Bradley, Keith

  Morley, Elliott

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Parry, Robert

  Clay, Bob

  Pike, Peter L.

  Clelland, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cohen, Harry

  Redmond, Martin

  Crowther, Stan

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Cryer, Bob

  Rogers, Allan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ruddock, Joan

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Dixon, Don

  Soley, Clive

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fatchett, Derek

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Fearn, Ronald

  Wall, Pat

  Flynn, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Fraser, John

  Walley, Joan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Home Robertson, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Winnick, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amos, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ashby, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  reasonable comment. I share his regret that the hon. Lady has not had a chance to take part in out proceedings, and I shall bear in mind his wish, as always, to be helpful.
  Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 43 agreed to.

  Boswell, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Bowis, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bright, Graham

  Knapman, Roger

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Knowles, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Burns, Simon

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Burt, Alistair

  Lilley, Peter

  Butler, Chris

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Butterfill, John

  Lord, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Carrington, Matthew

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Mans, Keith

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Marland, Paul

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Durant, Tony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mills, Iain

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Gow, Ian

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gregory, Conal

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Grist, Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heddle, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Holt, Richard

  Raffan, Keith

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Riddick, Graham

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Janman, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jessel, Toby

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  441

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Trippier, David

  Woodcock, Mike

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Tom Sackville and

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Michael Mallon.

  Walden, George

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 44 agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration of Lords amendments be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  1.14 am
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Government are again in a mess with their legislation, thanks to the obduracy of the Secretary of State for the Environment—principally—and the people responsible for this abysmal piece of legislation.
  1.15 am
  Tonight, the House has to consider 62 pages of more than 270 amendments, mainly emanating from the Government. I make it clear that we are perfectly willing, indeed keen, to continue debating the issues. We know that Conservative Members do not want those issues to be the subject of proper scrutiny or debate, because they are deeply embarrassed about their consequences for millions of families throughout the country.
  We know also that matters such as a change of landlord by rigged or gerrymandered voting systems are not among those that the Government want rigorously examined. We know that the Bill's implications and the housing action trust proposals will affect not only thousands of families but whole neighbourhoods and communities. We know also that those proposals have caused misery, distress and uncertainty among communities the length and breadth of the country, and will continue doing so if the Bill is left unamended.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment is in the process of hanging a second major albatross around the Government's neck. First there was the poll tax, and now the Housing Bill. It is something of a surprise that the right hon. Gentleman has quit so early in the discussions. After all, it was his well-known boast in the Committee Corridor when this legislation was being considered concurrently with the poll tax Bill that the Housing Bill was more interesting, principally because, as he claimed, he was the author of it. I hope that the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends are thinking about the quagmire into which he is again leading them.
  That is bad enough. What is worse is the Bill's terrible consequences for families in council and private tenancies whom it will affect. I can understand the Secretary of State being miffed about what has happened, but what is more surprising is his apparent belief—of which he was able to convince his right hon. and hon. Friends—that somehow these matters would slide quietly through the House and that we would not be asking serious and searching questions about them.
  442
  I have every confidence in my hon. Friends' ability to ask all the questions. I have been here almost all evening, and the questions have been asked but have not been answered. We shall go on asking those questions until we are given the answers.
  The Government have not made their intentions clear, but we suspect that there is a guillotine lurking round the corner. It is my hope—and I trust that Conservative Members have the good grace to share it with me—that we shall not see the abandonment on Friday of the promised debate on housing and homelessness in response to the Select Committee on the Environment's second report.
  Mr. Trippier: We have had it.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Under-Secretary says, "We've had it." Those may be prophetic words, because, judging by his performance so far, if anybody has had it, I guess that he has. He will be only the latest in a line of victims of the willingness of the Secretary of State to sacrifice others on the altar of his stupid ideas and ideological nonsense about how to handle housing and homelessness.
  We want to continue the debate now, and we are opposed to the motion to terminate discussion.
  Mrs. Mahon: I particularly wished to speak on amendment 44 and the amendment to it, amendment (a), and have been unable to do so. I wanted to speak even more after hearing the Secretary of State refuse yet again to answer points put by my hon. Friends. He treated the House with his usual contempt in his arrogant public-school manner, which I find offensive. My constituents, many of whom live on run-down estates and many of whom are elderly, have been caused the utmost anxiety by this dreadful Bill. They expect and deserve better. In my opinion, the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team have shown themselves unfit to run even the smallest council.
  Conservative Members have shown time after time their inability to understand the genuine concerns of people who need decent housing. Let me briefly run through the package of rights highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), when the Secretary of State refused to answer.
  Opposition Member after Opposition Member has pleaded for something to be done about security of tenure, but all we have been allowed is a very poor performance by the new Minister and no answers whatever. He does not understand what he is doing to people. The mark of a civilised society is the ability to house its people adequately, but the Minister does not even understand the dreadful consequences that the Bill will have.
  I wanted to question the Secretary of State about affordable rents. Homelessness is increasing for many reasons, but one of them is quite simple: people on small incomes simply cannot afford soaring rents. When people do not have enough money at the end of the week to feed themselves and to pay the rent, something gives. People are being thrown out on to the streets, and this rotten Bill will throw out thousands more.
  I also wanted to talk about other rights, such as the right of succession. Opposition Members wanted to discuss many more issues, but the debate has been deliberately stifled. Let me tell the Secretary of State that if he thinks that he has had it hot up to now, he has seen nothing yet. He is going to be buried in the misery that he is inflicting on the people of this country.
  Mr. Cryer: I wish to speak against the proposal. For one thing, several members of the Liberal party are present. Normally they go home early, and now that we have got them here it seems appropriate to continue the debate and give them an opportunity to speak.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State has been rather inconvenienced. I dare say that he may have been round at the American embassy last night, watching the election results. He is a bit overtired, and has decided that he cannot be bothered to take the Bill through the House tonight, so he will abandon it. It will not be abandoned for long, because the Secretary of State and his cronies will have it in mind to produce a guillotine. They will trample on the rights of Parliament to engage in proper debate. We are willing to examine the Bill in detail, to make our criticisms and to table amendments. We are here, willing and able to debate this noxious measure. If the Secretary of State and his cronies on the Treasury Bench decide to bring in a guillotine, everyone outside the House should know that the Labour Opposition were here, willing to debate for hour after hour, and if the Government make any cuts, they are deliberately curtailing debate in order to ride rough-shod with their seedy majority of estate agents and merchant bankers and get-rich-quick City people who will troop through the Lobby and get them their majority. It is very important that we should make the position absolutely clear.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, millions of people fear the legislation. They envisage their security of tenure being eroded and they envisage being treated by the Secretary of State as so many chattels to be sold along with whole council estates. They can envisage quangos being imposed on them.
  It is surprising that the Secretary of State is not anxious to proceed with the Bill, as he has acted on it without the legislative authority of the House. He has appointed housing action trusts. The Bill has not been approved by the Houses of Parliament. What could be more offensive to the democratic process than for an ex-public schoolboy, thinking that he has got so far with the Bill, to carry it out although it has not been approved? It is surprising that the Secretary of State is ignoring the House and deploring procedure so that he can get a bit of shut-eye and get to a meeting with the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State does not want to get to a meeting. He has an appointment in the morning. He has to get the bag out again. He has to troop behind the Prime Minister who has a photo opportunity lined up somewhere in Green park. That is what he is up to. The Prime Minister's husband will be behind them because he is in the refuse disposal business as the deputy managing director of Attwoods. He is not satisfied with doing it on the cheap. He is going to organise a contract and have a gin and tonic with the board while settling the amount of money.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is spot on. In addition, the Secretary of State will be having a meeting with the Leader of the House—they are having it right now—to decide what they will do to rescue the Bill.
  I am particularly concerned to oppose the progress motion because I have had two meetings at Bierley estate,
  444
  a big estate in my constituency. The tenants were outraged by the proposal. I went through every detail of the Bill, and they are particularly anxious about the voting proposals.
  We want to know whether they plan to cheat the tenants out of the right to reject the proposals to flog off their homes to private landlords so that their position is clarified. They want to know whether the Government take the view that people who are away in hospital, on holiday or wherever should not be included in the voting rights because they will be counted as being against the proposal not to have private landlords. The people of Bierley estate and other estates are anxious. The people of Bierley estate and other estates in Bradford and every other city should know that when I was raising the question of tenants' right to vote, the Secretary of State walked out without providing an answer. In so doing, he treated the tenants of the estate with contempt. The Secretary of State has left the Chamber to consider another planning application in his backyard in Cirencester and Tewkesbury, thus showing his contempt for the people whom we represent.
  1.30 am
  The tenants of Bierley estate have produced a petition. I told them that this debate was taking place tonight. They held a vote, and voted overwhelmingly against their estate being sold off to private landlords. I wanted an opportunity to go through the petition in a debate and outline what my constituents think of the Secretary of State's proposals. I am being denied that opportunity.
  I know what the Government have in mind: a three-hour guillotined debate. The tenants of Bierley and millions of others throughout the country will be denied the opportunity of having their opinions voiced by my hon. Friends due to the Government's chicanery, viciousness and use of the "Pickles" method of chopping debate.
  The Tory councillors in Bradford say that council meetings are not secret, but do my hon. Friends know that, on 25 October, when they were discussing the sacking of 9,000 people, Tory councillors in Bradford turned off the microphones so that people in the public gallery could not hear what they were saying? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, prevented the public from hearing his remarks directly. He addressed them to journalists, whom he blamed for reporting them accurately. That will prove to be an albatross—there are a few here tonight—around his plump neck.
  I want to express my outrage at the Government's shoddy tactics, employed to deny Opposition Members a first-class opportunity to discuss this Bill in detail. Let the tenants of Bierley know that I have mentioned their petition to all the smug Conservative Members sitting comfortably on the Treasury Benches, who are causing so much harm to working people and their families. They will know that our opportunity for debate has been curtailed by the Government.
  My guess is that the Government will come trundling in with the Bill on Friday: we shall oppose it tooth and nail, just as, united, we oppose this attempt to curtail debate on this miserable, wretched, obnoxious measure, which should be consigned to the rubbish bin of history.
  Mr. Pike: I speak against the motion to adjourn the debate. We should have a chance to debate the Bill. In

  445
  July, I called it a shambles of a Bill, but that was too polite. It is a squalid, disgraceful Bill that fails to tackle any of the housing problems in so many parts of the country.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, we know that the Government will return with a guillotine that will deny us an adequate opportunity to debate the legislation's important provisions.
  We must remember the history of the Bill's progress. It was not given enough time in Committee for proper debate, yet the Government massively amended it there—to such an extent that the Bill that emerged bore little resemblance to the Bill that went into Committee.
  On Report, the Government again amended the Bill extensively. They did not allow us time to debate the amendments, and I well recall the evening when we called Division after Division because the guillotine had curtailed debate on many important proposals.
  What has happened since then? A large number of amendments were tabled by the Government in another place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said earlier. But, once again, the Government are not prepared to allow time for this democratically elected House to debate the important implications of the Bill.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an even greater shambles than he thinks? It is a composite shambles. At the moment we are debating legislation for England and Wales but we should presently have been coming to amendments to the Scottish housing legislation. The Housing (Scotland) Bill was supposed to have reached the statute book last week. Because the Government got that wrong too, and because they have already begun transferring public sector housing into the private sector in Scotland, there are five groups of amendments affecting Scotland before us tonight. The Government have brought civil servants down from Edinburgh to cover the debate. They will have to go home as a result of the motion to adjourn consideration and when we come back again—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is intervening and should not be making speech.
  Mr. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has made a valid point.
  When discussing the Government's disgraceful move to stop democratic debate of the proposals we must take into account the fact that last week the Prime Minister was lecturing Poland on moves towards democracy. The Government repeatedly curtail democracy—in the House, in the trade unions and in local government.
  On 14 July, I suggested to the Leader of the House at business questions that the Bill was a shambles and that if the Government really wanted to conduct the legislation properly, the honourable course would be to withdraw the Bill and introduce a new Bill in the new Session dealing with the country's housing problems. The right hon. Gentleman said that he knew that I was trying to help the Government. I again suggest that if he really wants to take the positive way forward and prevent further debate, the most acceptable solution would be to tell us that the
  446
  Government are prepared to think again to withdraw the Bill and to bring back a Bill in the next, Session to deal properly with our housing problems.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an extraordinary Bill, and this extraordinary saga is likely to have an extrordinary conclusion. The Bill came before the House on 19 November last year. It was one of the first Bills that the Government introduced after the election. It was overtaken by many Bills on the way. It was overtaken because the Government had left bits out when they published it and they had to scrap the first edition and reprint it and because it did not do what the Prime Minister thought it would do.
  Two days before the election, the Prime Minister wrote to a tenant in south London explaining that the key part of the Bill, which allegedly gives tenants choice, would depend on a majority of tenants voting in favour of any proposal. A few months ago at Prime Minister's Question Time, I asked how the Prime Minister reconciled that with the fiddled voting system that appeared in the Bill. The Prime Minister said that, as far as she recollected, there was no fiddled voting system and that a majority of tenants was needed to support a proposed change of landlord. She got it wrong. Presumably it was pointed out to her that the Secretary of State and other Ministers had changed the system and produced a Bill with the most extraordinary voting system that we have ever known. The Education Reform Bill requires a majority of the parents voting to vote in favour before a school can opt out. This week the Government proposed an employment code, suggesting that a simple majority would not be a representative view from the work force and requiring a 70 per cent. majority. Yet in this Bill they first proposed a voting system whereby, in a block of 100, the decision to opt out could be taken by just one tenant voting in favour and 49 against. In a letter to me in August the Prime Minister referred to that system as "approval by informed acquiescence". A year after the Bill first saw light, although it was somewhat murky, the country now understands what that means. It means that those who say nothing are presumed to agree with the Prime Minister and to have no view of their own. The Prime Minister expects council tenants to behave like her Cabinet—if she says it will be done, it will be done. That is then called "tenants' choice". Eighty per cent. or more of my constituents are council tenants. What they understand to be the result of the Bill is not tenants' choice but tenants' fear—fear of having people they never chose taking over their homes without their consent and contrary to their wishes. That is not tenants' choice. It is Government diktat—from a Government who lecture others about dictatorship when, at home, they take choice away from the people whom they purport to represent.
  There have been two further extraordinary events. There was a proposal that six areas of Britain should have their housing nationalised, taken over by Government quangos and then privatised, without any voting at all. The tenants were not to be allowed any say at all. It was not until the Under-Secretary of State—and the Secretary of State, who flies in and out of the Chamber according to how often his nicotine addiction gets the better of him and forces him to take additional health-reducing sustenance behind the Speaker's chair—went to meet the tenants that they realised that the tenants actually believed that they should have a say in whether their housing was to be taken

  447
  over. At the last moment, the team who were at the Department when the Bill started having been reshuffled—the Minister of State was sent to the Foreign Office and the Under-Secretary of State back to Broxbourne—a member of the House of Lords who had never been elected by anyone and would probably not know a constituent if he saw one was released to meet the world on a Sunday programme and suddenly announced that tenants in housing action trust areas would have a vote after all. Twelve months on, the Government generously agree that tenants can have a say. My hon. Friends and I are here today in substantial numbers—[Interruption.] The Division records will show that more than two-thirds of our parliamentary party—the very good biblical number of 13—have been present because we believe that it is inappropriate for a Government who have taken a year to get this far suddenly to seek to postpone debate.
  We want to debate housing action trusts and tenants' choice. We want to debate the amendments. Fifty three of the 62 groups of amendments selected by Mr. Speaker have not yet been debated. If the Government intend to end this Session with a guillotine on the Bill, which I understand will take three hours of debate, and then force through 53 groups of amendments in the remaining days of this Parliament, they might be advised to think again about how they could make their life just a little easier.
  I shall give the Government a simple piece of advice—[HON. MEMBERS: Resign."] That is certainly an option that the Government are entitled to take. If they insist on staying in power and if they say that they actually understand that tenants are people with rights who should have a say, and that millions of people do not accept a fiddled voting system as one with any democratic authority, we should at least have the opportunity to improve what is a travesty of democratic legislation. Any attempt to steamroller it through the House will meet with as much resistance as it is possible to give. I sincerely hope that the Government have a deathbed repentence—repent now and die later.
  1.45 am
  Mr. Winnick: The Bill is crucial to many of our constituents because it removes protection in the private rented sector. Anyone who becomes a private tenant will be subject to market rents and his security of tenure will be limited. Obviously, we must be concerned about that. It is a crooked system. There is no other way to describe a system under which anyone who abstains is counted as being in favour of his accommodation being taken over by the private sector. Private landlords, even though they will be approved—for what that is worth—can take over any accommodation in our constituencies. There is no way that the local authority can say no. That is why there is so much anxiety.
  It is only because of pressure throughout the country and the way that the tenants affected by the housing action trusts made clear their strong opposition that even this Government were forced to listen and, hence, there will be some sort of vote. But why was that not suggested in the first place? Why should those tenants have their properties taken over by quangos and then, in turn, by the private sector, without them being given any vote? So much for a Government who talk about democracy.
  All those matters require as much debate as possible because they are crucial to our constituents. Quite a
  448
  number of Conservative right hon. and hon. Members have vested interests in the Bill and are likely to profit from it. It would be interesting if they were to declare their interests before going into the Lobby.
  Someone outside this House—he is not a Tory—has said that he is in favour of the Bill. I refer to Mr. Hoogstraten, one of the most notorious landlords in this country. He is a notorious crook who has been in prison. On a recent television programme he described his tenants as scumbags. There is no lesson that Rachman could have taught that man. When he was asked what he thought of the Bill, he said that it was a step in the right direction. The Bill is a step in the direction for every crook, for every unscrupulous person in the property market, for everyone who wants to make a fast buck and for everyone who wants to create misery and hardship. The Bill represents an advance for such people and they want it on the statute book.
  I was a councillor in Brent when the Rent Act 1957 was put on the statute book. Despite all the housing problems there, we, the Labour-controlled council, took upon ourselves the added responsibility of rehousing people who were evicted lawfully under that legislation. All our predecessors' warnings about what would happen, the insecurity and exploitation turned out to be right. They knew what they were talking about. Rachman was not known in 1957, but by 1961 his name was known the length and breadth of the country. We warn today that there will be other Rachmans and Hoogstratens who recognise not only the sums that can be made from new lettings at a market rent, but the danger of private tenants who have protection. There will be every incentive for unscrupulous gangster landlords to get those tenants out because, when the accommodation becomes vacant, it can be relet at market rents.
  The Bill is a disgrace. It will not do anything for the homeless, our constituents or young married couples who are desperate for accommodation but cannot afford a mortgage and live either in a rented room or with their in-laws. It will not help people in hardship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, there is not a Member of Parliament who does not have adequate housing. I have adequate accommodation and not one of us can claim housing hardship. Surely our constituents have as much right to it. That is why we oppose the Bill. It will not help them and in many ways it will make their position worse. It is a disgrace.
  The Prime Minister goes to Poland and lectures the leadership there. If there is any lecturing to be done, it can come from people like us rather than from her. Time and again she uses the guillotine to ensure that Bills such as this are not adequately debated. The guillotine will fall on Friday or Monday and debates will be restricted on clauses which are of the utmost concern to our constituents.
  The Bill is a disgrace and its handling has been a disgrace. We shall continue to fight it before and after it goes on the statute book. It is like the Tory 1957 Act. It is ammunition for gangsters and racketeers, and it is wholly opposed to everything that we believe in.
  My hon. Friends may not be aware that when the 1957 Act was being repealed by the Labour Government who came to office in 1964—we promised to repeal it during the election—the Tory Opposition did not vote against the Labour legislation. The time will come when we form a Government and repeal this obnoxious legislation which will be so discredited that the Tory Opposition will do

  449
  precisely the same. They will not vote against the legislation because we shall have been proved right, as our predecessors were 30 years ago.
  Mr. Fraser: I am outraged by this abridgement of debate. Somewhere on your desk, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a letter that I sent to Mr. Speaker last Thursday saying that I wanted to speak about housing action trusts. I promised the occupants of 3,000 dwellings, who are part of a HAT, that I would try to say something on their behalf, but there will be little opportunity to do so if the motion is passed.
  Those tenants have won a victory. At Question Time last Wednesday, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would accept a ballot by the tenants, but he dismissed the proposition arrogantly. We now have government not by Parliament but by Dimbleby, and on Sunday the Earl of Caithness told David Dimbleby that, contrary to what the Secretary of State told me last week, there would be a ballot by tenants. Although it is a victory, it is not sufficient. We should have preferred the Lords amendment to be passed, but at least it is some advance.
  Coupled with the concession made on television on Sunday was a threat of blackmail to 3,000 HAT tenants in my constituency. They were told that if they did not vote for a HAT they would not receive a slice of the £192 million that the Government are allocating to HATs. If the Secretary of State had done that during a parliamentary election he would have been convicted of corrupt practices. He is engaging in blackmail and demanding with menaces by saying, "If you do not vote for a HAT you will not receive a share of the money." On the one hand, tenants are being asked to vote for the Secretary of State's proposals, but on the other for a denial of those funds and a continuation of damp and too much asbestos. They are being asked to choose between the Secretary of State and cockroaches. Some would say that that is a difficult choice to make, but there is a more serious side to this matter. Those 3,000 homes will not be any different whether they are in or out of a HAT. There will still be the same damp and the same lack of insulation. They will still need improvement and will not be sufficiently heated; some will need money spent on them.
  My constituents want to explore with the Secretary of State the reason why they will be bribed to vote for a HAT or be denied access to the money. I have no doubt that they will vote against a HAT, but if the Secretary of State wants to save time he should remove part III of the Bill. Once there has been a ballot, HATs will be as dead as the dodo.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend mentioned intimidation. We have just watched the Tory Chief Whip move from his corner seat and go to Madam Deputy Speaker to engage in intimidation against her to get a closure—
  Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I assure the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that no hon. Member intimidates me.
  Mr. Fraser: I hope that the motion will not be passed and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss matters that affect about 6,000 of my constituents. No parliamentary announcement was made about the change of HATs; no parliamentary statement was made last week. The press office at the Department of the Environment had
  450
  to be opened on Sunday afternoon after the David Dimbleby broadcast to save Ministers' faces by issuing a press notice.
  Mr. Morgan: Perhaps the Government have announced a new principle of constitution—no television without representation.
  Mr. Fraser: In the light of what has happened recently, no television without repression.
  I protest that the chance to rehearse fully the arguments that my constituents in HATs have asked me to advance has been curtailed. I shall vote with all the strength that I can against the motion.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I do not think that any Opposition Member would believe for a moment that the Government are democrats. They are not democratic in the way in which they operate. They abuse the rights of the House as they abuse our citizens. We understand that, but we cannot take the hypocrisy of all this. We know, as does everyone else involved in housing, that the Bill will not provide one additional unit of accommodation. It is nothing to do with the housing crisis; it is all about the Conservative party's ideology. The Conservatives hate local authorities providing housing and they will do everything they can—the Bill is part of that strategy—to eliminate the provision of housing by local authorities. We have the evidence of the Government's words and of our eyes when we see their actions.
  2 am
  We deplore the Bill. It is a lousy, rotten Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. The people know that. It is impossible for us to stomach the Government's hypocrisy. They are altering the basis of public sector tenancies. They hope to hand large swathes of council tenants into the hands of the Hoogstratens and the nasty gangster landlords who are waiting for the Bill to get on to the statute book. We want the opportunity to expose the bankruptcy of the Government's case, and we need time to do that.
  The Government are clearly in a mess. Although I found the Bill iniquitous in the extreme, I had some pleasure in being the agency Whip who was brought back to do his little bit to stall its passage towards the statute book. The Conservative Benches have sometimes been full of Members and sometimes almost empty, but no one has been prepared to answer our case. They just want to steamroller the Bill through Parliament. They want to steamroller the rights of Parliament.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said, especially about local authorities and reasonable rents. Does he agree that it would be in the interests of many Government supporters to follow the Bill because its purpose is not just as my hon. Friend has described it but is to raise the general costs of housing for everyone, including private tenants, to make the housing market equal to the market in everything else, and therefore to put up the cost of housing relative to anything else and to be inflationary, which is contrary to the Prime Minister's claimed objectives? That is the degree of the cunning of the Conservatives who are not there tonight.
  Mr. Banks: As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. If we had had a proper debate which continued throughout today, he could have made those points. It appears that we shall be denied the opportunity to hear him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that the Bill will be an albatross around the neck of the Secretary of State. I shall not go all the way through it, but I remind the House of the first few lines of Coleridge's "The Ancient Mariner":
  "It is an ancient Mariner,
  And he stoppeth one of three.
  'By thy long grey beard and glittering eye,
  Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?'"
  I shall stop there because, although one may think that the Secretary of State resembles the ancient mariner, he has neither a beard nor a glittering eye. If there were any glitter in one of those eyes which showed any humanity, we would know that it was a glass eye. The Bill will be an albatross around his neck and we shall hang it there.
  Mr. Boateng: The Secretary of State is now with us. [HON. MEMBERS: "In body."] During the time that you have been out of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have missed a rather interesting, not to say macabre, phenomenon surrounding the person of the Secretary of State.
  To outline it briefly, what has happened is that there have been unpleasant manifestations of political will on the Government Benches. As soon as such manifestation has taken place—the most recent of them is the desire of those who sit on the Government Benches to curtail the debate—the Secretary of State disappears and melts into the background, one knows not where. One suspects that he goes somewhere to revitalise his vital forces. He goes away—dematerialises—and then, some time later, manifests himself once again on the Government Benches. That has happened time after time throughout the debate.
  Why should that be? The answer may lie in one aspect of this noxious Bill that we are being denied the right to discuss this evening—housing action trusts, the method by which they will come into existence and the way in which properties can be transferred from the trusts into the hands of private developers.
  The question that Ministers were unable to answer during earlier deliberations on the Floor of the House and in Committee is precisely the role of the dead in the voting. Any understanding of how this manifestation of the public will is to take place makes it quite clear that for the first time ever the dead will be given a vote. For the first time ever the dead will be seen positively to acquiesce—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It will be informed acquiescence.
  Mr. Boateng: Yes. There will be informed acquiescence on the part of the dead. When it is viewed in that rather macabre light, the disappearance and then the reappearance, or manifestation once more, of the Secretary of State becomes that much more clear.
  Mr. Hughes: We have always known that the Prime Minister believes that she has great power when communicating with the living. This is an extension of her belief in her new spiritual or supernatural prowess.
  Mr. Boateng: That is indeed so, and the Secretary of State is the cat on her broomstick. Our fear is that the Secretary of State is among the undead—the living dead.
  452
  Once one has made that vital conceptual leap, his appearances and disappearances during the debate become totally explicable.
  Mr. Skinner: Where do these series of macabre incidents take place? Would I be right to assume that they take place in Finchley at a Westminster council cemetery? What is the charge for witnessing these scenes? Is it 5p, or is it £2 million? Who is on the gate? Is it Lady Porter? Is she in charge? Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason the Government intend to close the debate shortly is that there is a Cabinet meeting in the morning—well, some people call it a Cabinet meeting but others call it the "Spitting Image" show.
  Mr. Boateng: A "Spitting Image" show—or a seance? Which is it?
  There is a way of determining the undead. In the absence of a silver bullet, and not wishing to descend to the level of a stake through the heart, one is driven to a time-honoured process. In this I have been greatly assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has provided me with a mirror. All that I need do is to put this picture of the Secretary of State in front of the mirror. If it does not immediately manifest itself in the mirror, the Secretary of State is truly of the undead. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no image in the mirror.
  But I digress slightly from this serious debate. Housing action trusts are a fundamental denial of democratic rights. They are the very negation of the people's right to choose. Of late, we have heard much from the Prime Minister about the people's right to choose. She went to Poland and lectured General Jaruzelski. In breathy tones, she said, "You know, people ought to be able to make vital choices that affect their lives. They ought to be able to make those choices. And do you know what we have found when we give them the opportunity to make those choices? Well, normally, you know, people make the right choice." That is what the Prime Minister said in Poland; why does she not give that right to the people who live on estates in this country? When she does, we can have a little more confidence in the assurances given to us by Ministers.
  The Government do not trust the people. They will not allow an open debate on this vital issue. As long as they continue to deny us the opportunity to debate the Bill, they must recognise that we shall push the matter here and in the country at large. We shall fight this Bill from here to Halifax.
  2.15 am
  Ms. Primarolo: When the Bill was introduced by the former Minister for housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), it was heralded as the most radical housing Bill this century. The offensive tactics that the Government have used as the Bill progressed through Committee, Report stage and the other place were certainly radical. It is strange that the Government are surprised that we oppose the Bill so vigorously. They are trying to reverse an important principle that was enshrined many years ago in the Housing Acts of Addison and Wheatley—that housing should be provided on the basis of need, at a reasonable cost, and that profit should not be made from that provision. It should be a social provision. The Bill would completely undermine that principle.

  453
  The Government have been creative in the provision of information to the public about what has happened in Parliament. They have not always told the truth. On 6 November, on the programme "On the Record", which seems to be more effective in obtaining answers from the Government than anyone else, the Earl of Caithness—under pressure—promised twice in the interview that tenants transferring into housing action trusts would have the right to vote and that a simple majority would suffice. That has not happened. We are told that many of the amendments are technical, but examination of the Official Report of the other place reveals that there was no debate of some amendments. Among the amendments which we have been denied the right to debate tonight are those in the group headed by Lords amendment No. 92. They are classed as technical, but they could be used to asset-strip local authorities as some of their housing stock could be forcibly removed. We have been denied the opportunity to question the Minister on those amendments which hitherto have been moved formally and not explained.
  The Government are attempting to face both ways when it comes to what they consider democratic. All but the most partisan—unfortunately, the deliberately partisan have a majority in the House—regard the Government's proposals as undemocratic and unprincipled. The Government have confirmed us in that belief time and again by denying us the right to explore what is going on.
  The Government have proposed a curious voting system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the dead and those who do not vote are deemed to have voted in favour of a transfer. The Government call it the inertia vote. [Interruption.] They gave reasons for it. In a quite different document, the Government talk of a new model active citizen—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is showing great discourtesy to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the noise may be the result of hon. Members' concern that an obscene picture has been laid on the Table of the House. Hon. Members wonder whether the Secretary of State has been nipping out during the debate to examine the document.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) should be heard by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Ms.Primarolo: Thank you, Madam deputy Speaker.
  The document on the active model citizen talks of the interventionist role of individuals to improve the lot of their neighbours. That does not square with the proposal for an inertia vote. Indeed, inertia voting goes against the principle of natural jusice. The Government, however, are denying us the right to question them on that.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has told us that the Earl of Caithness made a statement on television about voting for potential HAT tenants. It seems that that which featured in the earl?s statement has not appeared on the Amendment Paper and that the Government are not proceeding with it. There are two members of the Cabinet on the Treasury Bench, and if they wished to intervene I am sure that my hon. Friend would be prepared to give
  454
  way to allow them to do so. Is it not high time, even during the debate on the motion, for them to tell us whether there is a reason for the Government choosing not to proceed with that which the Earl of Caithness described on television? Surely they should explain what will happen. If the guillotine does not provide sufficient time for an explanation to be given at a later date, there is sufficient time now. Or is this yet another example of a Minister saying something to the media—this time in public—that is not being carried out in practice?
  Ms. Primarolo: The Government do not intend to give us the truth about the Bill, and that is the purpose of the motion. They will not engage us in debate. The occupants of the Treasury Front Bench have not moved, and it is clear that even at this late stage they will not come clean.
  The Bill makes no provision, suggestions or proposals. We have not been convinced by any arguments that we have heard to date that have sought to explain why the Government are so passionately committed to the principle that private accommodation and private landlords will provide accommodation and correct the problems of homelessness and poor accommodation. The Government need to be reminded that council housing exists because of the failure of the private sector to house the people.
  As a new Member, I suffer occasionally from the delusion that the purpose of being here is to debate, discuss, question, clarify and express the points of view of those whom we represent. During the passage of the Bill the Government have shown nothing but contempt for the electoral process, the rights of the people to housing and the rights of hon. Members to question and challenge them. Is it true that we no longer have the accountability of Ministers in the House? Whenever they do not want to answer a question, they move the closure, suspension and a timetable motion. That is what they have done throughout our discussions on the Bill. It is a disgrace. How dare they talk to us about giving people choice when they do not give Members of this place the right to choose what to question them upon?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 46.

  Division No. 484]

  [2.22 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bright, Graham

  Amos, Alan

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ashby, David

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butler, Chris

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  455

  Durant, Tony

  Mills, Iain

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gow, Ian

  Neubert, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gregory, Conal

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Grist, Ian

  Page, Richard

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Pawsey, James

  Harris, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heddle, John

  Price, Sir David

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hill, James

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hind, Kenneth

  Riddick, Graham

  Holt, Richard

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sims, Roger

  Irvine, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Janman, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Trippier, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Latham, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Lilley, Peter

  Walden, George

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Waller, Gary

  Lord, Michael

  Ward, John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Wheeler, John

  Mans, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Maples, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Marland, Paul

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  NOES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Livsey, Richard

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McCartney, Ian

  Battle, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Beith, A. J.

  Meale, Alan

  Boateng, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Bradley, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clay, Bob

  Morley, Elliott

  Cohen, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Prescott, John

  Dixon, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Redmond, Martin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Soley, Clive

  Haynes, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Home Robertson, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Vaz, Keith

  456

  Wall, Pat

  Winnick, David

  Wallace, James

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 46.

  Division No. 485]

  [2.34 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Allason, Rupert

  Jessel, Toby

  Amos, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ashby, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Atkins, Robert

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Knapman, Roger

  Baldry, Tony

  Knowles, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Latham, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Lilley, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bowis, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Brazier, Julian

  Mans, Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Maples, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Burns, Simon

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Burt, Alistair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Butler, Chris

  Mills, Iain

  Butterfill, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Carrington, Matthew

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Carttiss, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Paice, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Patnick, Irvine

  Durant, Tony

  Pawsey, James

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Price, Sir David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Raffan, Keith

  Gow, Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Riddick, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grist, Ian

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Harris, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Heddle, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Sims, Roger

  Hind, Kenneth

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Holt, Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thurnham, Peter

  Irvine, Michael

  Trippier, David

  457

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Watts, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wheeler, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  NOES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Meale, Alan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Michael, Alun

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Battle, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Beith, A. J.

  Morley, Elliott

  Boateng, Paul

  Parry, Robert

  Bradley, Keith

  Pike, Peter L.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Prescott, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Clay, Bob

  Redmond, Martin

  Cohen, Harry

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Cryer, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Soley, Clive

  Dixon, Don

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Vaz, Keith

  Faulds, Andrew

  Wall, Pat

  Fraser, John

  Wallace, James

  Haynes, Frank

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Home Robertson, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Livsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McCartney, Ian

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.
  To be further considered this day.

  SCHOOL BOARDS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  To be considered this day.

  ALL PARTY AND PARLIAMENTARY GROUPS
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Resolution of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) relating to All Party and Parliamentary Groups, as set out in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee of Tuesday 25th October 1988 (HC 183-V).—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robin Squire be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation, and Mr. Michael Knowles be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  PUBLIC HEALTH
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Amendment No. 4 Order 1988 (S.I., 1988), dated 28th October 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

  PHARMACEUTICAL DIRECTIVES
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4171/88 on the extension of the pharmaceutical directives to medicinal products not yet covered; endorses the view that these instruments are a necessary component in the completion of the internal market in medicinal products to which the Government is committed; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that the Commission's action in this field continues to take full account of the United Kingdom's interests.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Hospital Service, Leicestershire
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  2.47 am
  Mr. Michael Latham: In September, the Leicestershire health authority put forward a series of drastic proposals for public consultation. They affect all hon. Members with Leicestershire constituencies, and I have already advised you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister, that any Leicestershire Member who seeks to catch your eye will have my agreement to take part in this short debate.
  Before that, I record the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). As a Whip, he is not allowed to speak but I know of his tremendous commitment to the Health Service in his constituency. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) are away from the House on important business, but have sent their good wishes; my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is, alas, unwell and awaiting an operation, but he has always been a tower of strength in lobbying for Leicestershire and he telephoned his good wishes from his sick bed.
  The health authority is short of cash, especially the extra money needed to open phase 2 of the new Glenfield district hospital in 1990–91, and phase 4 of the Leicester royal infirmary in 1991–92, together with two small schemes in Loughborough and Hinckley. Those schemes alone will produce a deficit of more than £4 million. If the authority proceeds with other desirable improvements the deficit will be nearly £8 million, and by 1994, if nothing is done, it will have risen to £21 million.
  The authority is trying to achieve savings by completely closing eight hospitals, transferring some wards between the various city hospitals and closing all four rural maternity units. Two of the hospitals scheduled for closure—Framland and Catmose Vale—and two of the maternity units—at St. Mary's, Melton Mowbray, and at Rutland memorial hospital—are in my constituency.
  Leicestershire health authority has long been underfunded. When I was a new Member in 1974 Leicestershire received only 75 per cent. of national average NHS funding. With all the other county and city Members of Parliament at that time I went to see Mrs. Barbara Castle, the then Secretary of State. We urged her to improve Leicestershire's share of national resources and to permit the proposed new Glenfield hospital, at that time threatened with the axe, to be built. As a result of sustained all-party pressure and the good effect of the resource allocation working party, Leicestershire now gets 96 per cent. of the NHS national average, which is still not enough, but better than 75 per cent. The new Glenfield general hospital has been open for a couple of years, and funding phase 2 of it constitutes part of our financial problem.
  I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister here, even at 2.48 am, but I must press her, first, to defend the RAWP formula. It is essential to Leicestershire, and we must proceed to 100 per cent. average funding as quickly as possible. Some people, perfectly honourably, have suggested mothballing the new Leicester units. I cannot support that, having pressed for almost 15 years for them to be built. Many of my constituents will benefit from
  460
  them. I press my hon. Friend to ensure that some of the new money announced for the NHS by the Chancellor in his autumn statement be urgently directed to Leicestershire to help it cope with its immediate cash crisis.
  Several of the hospitals scheduled for closure were announced as long as over three years ago in the authority's 1985 strategic plan. Both Framland and Catmose Vale hospitals in my constituency are old hospitals. Splendid care of the elderly takes place at both units and I pay tribute to the staff. However, I do not oppose their closure, and nor do many of my constituents. We merely demand that some of the large sums released from the sale of the land be ploughed back into adequate provision of extra beds for the elderly in other hospitals in Melton and Oakham and into really effective community care. It will not be adequate to rely solely upon the private nursing homes, although they have an important part to play, and it will be wholly unsatisfactory to take maternity beds at the Rutland memorial hospital for the purposes of geriatric care. Rutland people expect additional provision to be made for the elderly at Rutland memorial hospital, with the use of some of the money from the sale of Catmose Vale, as was specifically promised in the 1985 strategy document. The elderly patients and the splendid staff deserve better than the health authority's present proposals, which seem ill thought out and inadequately related to the local needs of elderly people, who need to be visited by their families and friends.
  Let me deal with the shameful proposal to close the rural maternity units at Oakham and Melton Mowbray. In my view, this proposal shows a complete lack of concern for the wishes of ordinary people in rural areas. In 1987, there were 296 maternity beds in seven hospitals throughout Leicestershire, providing for 10,789 deliveries. The new proposal is for 220 beds in two hospitals, both in Leicester city, for 11,000 deliveries, with the remaining five units being closed down.
  That is the mentality of the NHS production line: grab them in and shove them out again and never mind about the wishes of the mother and the family. Those crude proposals have aroused immense anger in my constituency—anger that I share. They are dressed up as being good for mother and baby, allegedly because the birth will take place in a modern, hi-tech general hospital. The proposals ignore the fact that the two units are safe and friendly and, above all, accessible to women living in rural areas.
  The NHS has been closing rural units for far too long. I can best illustrate that point with a personal example. My eldest son James, who is nearly 13, was born in November 1975 in Corby maternity unit, four miles from my home in Gretton. My younger son Richard, who is 9¾, was born in Kettering general hospital, 13 miles away, in February 1979 because the Corby maternity unit had closed in the intervening years. My wife went into labour with Richard, my younger son, in the middle of a massive snowstorm. The ambulance just got her out of my village before lunch, and she was the last person out of the village that day. I could not get out because I had to look after James at home. I did not see Richard until 24 hours after he was born and the roads had been cleared by snow ploughs.
  That is the miserable prospect that awaits my constituents—except that the distance from some of the Rutland and Vale of Belvoir villages to Leicester is over 30 miles, often along poor roads and perhaps in fog, ice or snow. No, thank you very much. That simply is not tolerable, and I will not let it happen, especially when any

  461
  financial saving from such closures would be negligible, and the inconvenience, expense and worry for my constituents quite unacceptable.
  I have great personal affection and respect for my hon. Friend the Minister. I shall make her an offer that she cannot refuse. If she wants my support for her conduct in the House of the NHS she will tell Leicestershire health authority here and now that the rural maternity units must be saved. If she does not, I promise her that I will make her ministerial life a misery until the units are saved. My constituents are simply not to be treated in that cavalier and unreasonable manner by the health authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has said the same. He has told the authority of his complete opposition to the closure of the maternity unit at Market Harborough cottage hospital. His wisdom, experience and knowledge of his constituents over nearly 30 years in the House deserve respect.
  Finally let me say a word to the Leicestershire health authority, to which I shall also make an offer that it cannot refuse. I have a letter from the chairman, Mr. George Farnham, who is an old and valued friend of mine. It is a stick of political dynamite, and I intend to explode it now. He wrote to me 14 months ago on 8 September 1987, referring to maternity services in Melton and Rutland:
  "There is no question in my mind or in the minds, to the best of my knowledge, of our Gynaecologists about the retention of the peripheral maternity units; they will be retained as presently constituted. I hope this puts your mind at rest on this matter."
  Mr. Farnham is a man of honour. I am sure that he will now tell his colleagues and staff in the health authority that the proposals cannot proceed. The maternity units must be saved forthwith and the battle should be won tonight.
  I now invite other hon. Members from Leicestershire briefly to express their constituency concerns.
  2.56 am
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate him on the impressive stand that he took in the debate on the imposition of charges for eye and dental tests which we both agree will deny many people, especially the elderly, the right to medical services.
  It is appropriate that we should discuss the Health Service in Leicestershire because a sickness is spreading through it. The root cause is, of course, resources. When my day began at 9.30 am yesterday I attended, with many mothers and babies from the constituencies of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who is also present in the Chamber, a lobby of the health authority in Princess road, Leicester. The object was, of course, to protest against the closure of the eight hospitals. Two have already been mentioned. The others are the Ashby and district hospital, Blaby hospital, Fielding Johnson, Higham Grange centre, the Regent hospital and the Roundhill maternity home. When one adds to those the proposed closures of wards at Groby road and Leicester general hospital in my constituency and the possible closure of the Towers hospital in 1992, one realises that the Health Service in Leicestershire is in crisis.
  462
  I pay tribute to the work that has been done by parents and staff and by unions such as NUPE and COHSE to oppose the closures. There are currently 8,500 people on the hospital waiting list in the Leicestershire district. There are 600 people waiting for orthopaedic operations; and it will take 60 full days of surgery to clear the urgent list, the only definition of urgency in such cases being that of indescribable pain. In Leicestershire it takes months or even years to get a hearing aid approved and fitted.
  The morale of staff at local hospitals is at an all-time low. On Saturday 12 nurses came to my surgery at the Coleman neighbourhood centre. Sister Sandra Burgin has been working for more than 20 years as a theatre sister at the general hospital. Last week her managers announced to her that she would be receiving a pay rise of 38p per week. She says that that is a disgrace, and I agree. Ancillary workers at the hospital are being denied a pay rise of just £1·50 per week. The Government have robbed the Leicestershire health authority of more than £20 million in the past five years, and it will be a further £8 million short this year.
  So far, 34 right hon. and hon. Members have signed my early-day motion opposing the closure of the eight hospitals. It must be pointed out, however, that the health authority still wastes a great deal of money. For example, in the general hospital in my constituency the health authority has decided to undertake a scheme called QED, resulting in hundreds of large red feet stickers being spread all over the hospital in an attempt to save money. That scheme has cost several thousands of pounds.
  We all know where the blame lies and who is responsible. We know who has betrayed the county and who has robbed the people of Leicestershire of a decent Health Service and turned it into a jumble sale. I gave notice before the debate informing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), that I should be talking about him. I describe his attitude and conduct as hypocritical. Blaby hospital is in his constituency, but he has not lifted a finger to prevent its closure. This morning a petition of 10,000 signatures was presented to save the hospital.
  Last week in the House of Commons the Chancellor promised £2 billion for the Health Service. I should like to know what will be Leicestershire's share. The Chancellor should be ashamed of himself because, as a Leicestershire Member of Parliament, he has taken part in a conspiracy to deny the people of Leicestershire their fair share of services. We want the cash, and we want it now.
  3 am
  Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for initiating this debate.
  We have just heard something of a political tirade from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). He was not a Member in 1983 and so would not remember the hard work of my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton, for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and myself to ensure that Leicestershire received a fair share of the national RAWP average. It was down to 92 per cent. and the position was acute. It is now up to almost 97 per cent. That is not good enough—we

  463
  want 100 per cent.—but there has been a definite improvement. I am grateful to all those who worked so hard to achieve that.
  We can appreciate the difficulties in which the Leicestershire health authority finds itself. In 1979 it had old hospitals, but all plans were put on the shelf because the previous Government had failed to provide sufficient funding for the NHS. Leicestershire health authority was desperate. It had to dust the plans off the shelf and try to provide the services that Leicestershire needed. It did not have sufficient acute services. Since 1984 there has been £18 million of new investment and a vast increase in the services required, above and beyond those that could be readily appreciated. As a result, the health authority is in some difficulty. It is not of its own making or that of the Government; it is simply a fact.
  There has been enormous investment in Leicestershire, and we should be grateful to the Government for that. Leicestershire has centres of excellence. If I were to be desperately ill, I would rather be ill in Leicestershire than anywhere else. A new hospital was opened recently at Coalville. It provides much-needed services for the elderly. Because the population is becoming older, there is a need for those services. The hospital includes what I believe to be a very important service, the general practitioner beds. They are vital to the community. Many families who look after elderly relatives need some relief for a short time. Often one elderly person looks after another who is seriously ill, and he needs to have a few days break every six weeks or so.
  Although I am pleased about the opening of Coalville hospital, it has placed the Ashby district hospital at risk. It has been in existence for more than 100 years and is very much loved. It has a maternity unit, but the difficulty is that there are only 3·4 births per week in the unit. Bed occupancy is only 33 per cent. Only easy births take place there; difficult births take place at the royal infirmary. The average stay is live days. I have spoken to the experts—not the doctors, but the nurses who run the unit—who say that they can never predict whether a birth will be easy or difficult. One in 10 is difficult and the patient has to be rushed to a major hospital. The nurses feel that the mothers are too much at risk. That is just one view and there are others. Mothers say, "Mothers are entitled to choose", but it is often those who have had an easy birth who say that. Those who had a difficult birth say, "Thank goodness we have these centres of excellence in Leicestershire."
  Those are the two sides of the argument, which is a sad one. We must look at the overall picture and appreciate the difficulties of the area health authority. We must stress that it is providing excellent NHS facilities for the critically ill for the whole of Leicestershire.
  3.5 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on winning the ballot. He takes a great interest in the welfare of his constituents and health care nationally. I took seriously his threat to make my life a misery, but I have to tell him that so long as I hold this great office of state and see daily many marvellous examples of good care in the NHS and outside, my life is a joy and nothing that he can do can dent it, even at 3 am.
  464
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) who is my neighbour. I join in his delight at the new Coalville hospital which has been welcomed and enjoyed by his constituents. I hope to see it before too long. I am sorry that our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is unwell and I hope that my hon. Friends will convey to him my good wishes for a successful treatment and speedy recovery. If there is anything that I can do to help I should be glad to make myself useful, but I am sure he is being extremely well looked after at home.
  I also note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) in his place on the Front Bench. That surprises me because I have in front of me the profile of Leicestershire district health authority produced by my Department and dated 31 October 1988 in which he, with his majority of 17,648, is recorded as a Labour Member. I think that that is a mistake and I am glad to have his support tonight.
  I note also what the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has said and shall comment on his points as I proceed.
  Trent regional health authority has benefited enormously from Government policy in recent years, as all present acknowledge. Ten years ago, when the party which the hon. Gentleman supported and probably still supports was in power, the authority was receiving £369 million. Last year it rose to just over £1 billion—an increase of about 14 per cent. in real terms—and Trent's initial cash allocation for this year was increased by 6·3 per cent. to over £1,050 million, which is well above the national average increase of 5·7 per cent. That shows both how much we care about the region and the tremendous improvement, particularly in the position of the regional health authority in relation to RAWP.
  As I said on Monday night when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) was drawing attention to issues on health care also covered by Trent regional health authority:
  "We should not underestimate the impact of the Trent regional health authority or of the National Health Service generally on local life. More than 660,000 in-patients were cared for in Trent hospitals last year and total employment in the regional health authority stands at about 75,000 whole-time equivalent staff. The amount of money contributed to the local economy by the health authority is considerable."—[Official Report, 7 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 149.]
  Leicestershire health authority is the biggest district in the country. It looks after a population of about three quarters of a million. It is a major centre for teaching and health care. It looks after about 100,000 in-patients a year and nearly 600,000 out-patients, with over 12,000 staff. In the past four years there has been an increase of more than 500 in front-line manpower—doctors and nurses. That is hardly the picture of misery that was painted by the hon. Gentleman. This year its capital allocation, for example, plus estimated income from the sale of land, will come close to £20 million.
  When I became a Member of Parliament, Leicestershire heath authority was receiving £116 million a year. Last year it was £162 million and this year it is £177 million, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West said, demonstrates the improvement service and funding. Indeed, it gives the lie to what the hon. Gentleman said. So much for Government robbery. If that is robbery, most local people would rather have

  465
  more of it than less. The development of services in Leicestershire was described in the strategic review which Leicestershire health authority recently produced. I understand that it is out for consultation, so hon Members will realise that I am constrained in what I can say.
  In 1984, the health authority started thinking about future services. The strategic plan was approved following wide public consultation and published in 1985. A number of the health authority's present plans were not in the plan published in 1985. The intention is to provide a first-class acute specialist service from three general hospitals—the Leicester Royal infirmary, Leicester general and Glenfield hospital, which are all in Leicester—but at the same time to redevelop smaller hospitals around the county into a series of community hospitals mainly concentrating on the care of elderly people, in which the growth of need is likely to be sharpest in the next few years.
  I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said about geriatric services, but we cannot escape the fact that there will be a rapid increase in the number of elderly people. They will increasingly need our help in the future.
  In the short time that I have left I shall concentrate on maternity care. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said about maternity care, but I hope that he will think that his criticism of the big hospitals was somewhat over the top. I shall not rehearse my obstetric history, but I had both my children at a major teaching hospital in the midlands, and I am glad that I did. I was booked as a low-risk mother, as most people with my background and housing would have been. I was not low risk and experienced problems, and I was extremely glad that everything was on tap. My baby was delivered in a slightly less than usual way, but she is fine. Had I had these problems elsewhere, we might have formed part of the statistics to which I shall refer in a moment. Throughout the country, hundreds of women receive excellent care in the major hospitals and it is not appropriate to infer that because a hospital is big it cannot give kindly care or that the quality of care is diminished. I hope that that is not the case, and I am certain that it is not in Leicestershire.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West drew attention to something that is of significance in the papers prepared for consultation by the district health authority. The number of occupied beds for maternity care at Ashby hospital in the year ended 31 March 1988 was 5·9. That is quite a reasonable occupancy, but it suggests that there is a gap. At Roundhill there are 30 beds, of which 15 are unused, and the number of occupied beds is only 6·1. At St. Mary's, Melton, there are 10 beds, of which only five are used. At Rutland Harborough there are eight beds, of which three are used.
  466
  At Loughborough there are eight beds, of which six are used. By "used", I mean the average number of occupied beds. The number of births per bed per year in those hospitals in 1987 ranges between about 32 or 33 at St. Mary's, Melton, and 11 at Market Harborough.
  I accept that in the strategic plan, the four small hospitals—particular reference has been made to the GP maternity beds—were regarded as remaining in use until the end of the planned period. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton was right to draw attention to that, but it should be noted that the health authority decided in May 1987, following consultation and with agreement, that the total number of GP maternity beds in Market Harborough, Oakham and Melton Mowbray should be reduced from 56 to 31 in view of the significant under-use. The rate of use of some of those beds after that reduction is still less than half. Their main use is for out-patients, and that will remain so. Wherever babies are being born in Leicestershire, they are not, on the whole, being born in the small maternity units.
  I am told that ante-natal care will be provided at each of the four hospitals and the accommodation released is intended for a variety of uses, most of which will require accommodation for geriatric patients, additional support services and out-patient clinics.
  In a question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said that he wanted no generalities and expected
  "to hear that the proposals to close all rural maternity units have been dropped?"—[Official Report, 3 November 1988; Vol. 139 c. 1189.]
  The proposal has not been dropped. The health authority has not finished consultation on the matter. The proposal has not come before Ministers. That will probably happen next spring, but only if there is failure to agree locally. Whatever decision is taken it will be in the interests of the patients, and that includes unborn children. I carry the burden of knowing that 45 women in the United Kingdom died in childbirth last year. Although we announced yesterday that we have the lowest infant death rate on record, in comparison with other countries Britain has a worse record. The death rates in other countries of tiny babies have tended to fall faster.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to listen to the views of my hon. Friends. The debate has shown again their interest in their constituents. I hope that they will take on board that we are trying to provide the best service that we can. I hear the commitment that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has made to the small maternity units and we shall ensure that his views, those of his constituents and other hon. Members are taken into Account.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Three o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Pupils (Boarding Fees)
  Pupils (Boarding Fees)
  US Air Force Medical Storage Facility
  US Air Force Medical Storage Facility
  Recruiting
  Recruiting
  Officers
  Officers
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  EH101 Helicopters
  EH101 Helicopters
  NATO (Weapons Deployment)
  NATO (Weapons Deployment)
  Chemical Weapons (Libya)
  Chemical Weapons (Libya)
  Soviet Union
  Soviet Union
  Nuclear Testing
  Nuclear Testing
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Birth and Marriage Certificates (Passport Applications)
  Birth and Marriage Certificates (Passport Applications)
ENVIRONMENT
  Mineral and Coal Extraction
  Mineral and Coal Extraction
  Football (Arrests)
  Football (Arrests)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Planning
  Planning
  Housing
  Housing
  Valuation Panels
  Valuation Panels
  Football Supporters (National Membership Scheme)
  Football Supporters (National Membership Scheme)
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
WALES
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Ian Fraser (JMB)
  Ian Fraser (JMB)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Language Teaching
  Language Teaching
  Geological Surveying
  Geological Surveying
  Science (Funding)
  Science (Funding)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Schools (Discipline)
  Schools (Discipline)
  Students (Covenants)
  Students (Covenants)
  ERA Bulletin
  ERA Bulletin
  Admissions Classes
  Admissions Classes
  Science Budget
  Science Budget
  CERN
  CERN
  Under-fives
  Under-fives
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Silo Effluent (Pollution)
  Silo Effluent (Pollution)
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  Research
  Research
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Staff (Access)
  Staff (Access)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
  Military Goods and Services
  Military Goods and Services
  Trade Descriptions Act
  Trade Descriptions Act
  Misleading Price Markings
  Misleading Price Markings
  Medicine Imports
  Medicine Imports
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  European Community (Foreign Policy)
  European Community (Foreign Policy)
  Brazil
  Brazil
  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  Central America
  Central America
  Turks and Caicos Islands (Attorney-General)
  Turks and Caicos Islands (Attorney-General)
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Continental Shelf (Delimitation)
  Continental Shelf (Delimitation)
ENERGY
  Energy Audits
  Energy Audits
  Greenhouse Effect
  Greenhouse Effect
  Electricity
  Electricity
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Alternative Energy
  Alternative Energy
TRANSPORT
  Road Accidents (Driver Statistics)
  Road Accidents (Driver Statistics)
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Orange Badge Scheme
  West Wellow (Accidents)
  West Wellow (Accidents)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Motorways
  Motorways
  City Airport (Road Link)
  City Airport (Road Link)
  Eye Bypass
  Eye Bypass
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Spray)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Spray)
  Roads (Open Draining Asphalt Systems)
  Roads (Open Draining Asphalt Systems)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Air Traffic Delays
  Air Traffic Delays
  M27—M3 Link
  M27—M3 Link
  Thames Bridges
  Thames Bridges
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Slaughtering Facilities
  Slaughtering Facilities
  Set-aside Proposals
  Set-aside Proposals
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Private Health Care
  Private Health Care
  Ultimate Dream (Order)
  Ultimate Dream (Order)
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  Seals Virus
  Seals Virus
EMPLOYMENT
  YTS
  YTS
  Job Clubs
  Job Clubs
  Tourism
  Tourism
HEALTH
  Local Authority Spending
  Local Authority Spending
  Medicine Imports
  Medicine Imports
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Measles, Mumps, Rubella
  Measles, Mumps, Rubella
  Nurses (Back Injuries)
  Nurses (Back Injuries)
  Private Residential Homes
  Private Residential Homes
  RAWP Targets
  RAWP Targets
  Cleveland (Child Abuse)
  Cleveland (Child Abuse)
  Aluminium
  Aluminium
  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mental Health Act Commission
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Forms (Welsh Language)
  Forms (Welsh Language)
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Private Residential Care Accommodation
  Private Residential Care Accommodation
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Lone Parents
  Lone Parents
  Transitional Payments Unit
  Transitional Payments Unit
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
THE ARTS
  Paintings (Sales)
  Paintings (Sales)
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  YTS
  YTS
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  CBI
  CBI
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Campaign for a Scottish Assembly
  Campaign for a Scottish Assembly
  SSHA (House Sales)
  SSHA (House Sales)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  National Farmers Union
  National Farmers Union
  Nurses (Regrading)
  Nurses (Regrading)
  Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
  Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
  Scottish TUC
  Scottish TUC
  Salmon Fishing
  Salmon Fishing
  Balbirnie House
  Balbirnie House
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Borders Region
  Borders Region
  Rent and Rates Arrears
  Rent and Rates Arrears
  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Royal Ordnance (Bishopton)
  Royal Ordnance (Bishopton)
  SSHA
  SSHA
  Uniform Business Rate
  Uniform Business Rate
  Tenants' Rights
  Tenants' Rights
  Pre-school Nurseries
  Pre-school Nurseries
  Tayside (Crime Statistics)
  Tayside (Crime Statistics)
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  Scottish Transport Group
  Scottish Transport Group
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Educational Institute of Scotland
  Educational Institute of Scotland
  Ferry Transport (Privatisation)
  Ferry Transport (Privatisation)
  Staffed Beds (Glasgow)
  Staffed Beds (Glasgow)
  Social Work Assessed Need
  Social Work Assessed Need
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Charitable Donations
  Charitable Donations
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Disaggregation of Income
  Disaggregation of Income
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Domestic Credit
  Domestic Credit
  Unearned Income
  Unearned Income
  Double Taxation
  Double Taxation
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Personal Taxation Statistics
  Personal Taxation Statistics
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Allowances and Reliefs
  Allowances and Reliefs
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Press Briefing)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Press Briefing)
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  Wife's Earnings Election
  Wife's Earnings Election
  VAT (Second-hand Businesses)
  VAT (Second-hand Businesses)
  EC (Funding)
  EC (Funding)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Lord Butterfield
Sir William John Hughes Butterfield, Knight, OBE, having been created Baron Butterfield, of Stechford in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Birk and the Lord Marshall of Leeds.

Exports and the Balance of Payments
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the present adverse trend in the balance of payments, they contemplate giving greater support to export promotion.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the White Paper DTI: The Department for Enterprise which was published in January stated that in the light of advice from the British Overseas Trade Board the department's export services would be reorganised later this year to reflect exporters' needs better. As I told my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on 7th November, I am continuing to examine ways in which our export services can be improved including increasing the role played by private sector organisations. I hope to announce the result of the review shortly.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, can I ask how he reconciles the Government's evident intention of promoting exports with the fact that expenditure on export promotion has fallen in the last three years from £27·7 million in 1985–86 to an estimated £25·3 million last year? Would it not have been more desirable to have had increased effort in this sector in view of our present position?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the quality of the spend is, we believe, more relevant than absolute quantity. Export figures actually reached a record last August and manufacturing industry continues to perform well. In the three months to August exports of manufactures including erratics were 8½ per cent. higher than a year ago, while manufacturing output was over 6½ per cent. higher. It is more important that we see the performance of our manufacturers improved than that we worry about government assistance to industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the Autumn Statement forecasts that in volume terms our share of world trade in manufactures will
618
go down both in 1988 and in 1989? How can that prospect be described as anything other than very depressing?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, simply, it matters little that the volume share of world trade goes down so long as the absolute share and performance of the United Kingdom go up. If world trade is expanding faster than that of the United Kingdom, our concern is to see British exports continuing to expand and manufacturers making their contribution towards solving the present problems we have with the balance of payments.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that a most important factor in improving the balance between imports and exports is for manufacturing companies to invest more in new product development? Will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to stimulate that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the simple truth is that the most important single factor, not only for improving our exports performance but also for ensuring that more British manufactured goods are bought by the British people, is that those goods are better designed and more reliable and that they are delivered to time and work well. That is the secret of improving all these figures.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that import substitution is as important as export promotion? Is he aware that this year's total bill for timber imports is £6 billion and that as a result of government policy tree planting in this country is diminishing?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware of occasional complaints from some Members of your Lordships' House who live north of the Border that too many parts of the country are being planted with trees. The balance is difficult. We must ensure that we produce the goods and the products that we buy at home. There has been a vast increase in the amount of timber required for paper and other purposes. I hope that in the fullness of time we shall narrow the gap; but we shall never close it.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, Japanese companies which have established manufacturing bases in this country are increasingly concerned that entry of their products into the European Community is being stemmed. The noble Lord knows of the problems with Nissan. Can he assure such companies that they will receive the full protection of Her Majesty's Government once they are British companies and that they will share in the benefits of export promotion?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, goods manufactured in this country, whether in factories owned by British resident companies, British companies, Japanese or other foreign-owned companies, providing that over 60 per cent. of the content is of European origin, are free to be sold throughout the Community. The Government stand

619
by that decision, and I am sure that in one particular instance the Government of France will also stand by it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, if it is important to buy goods manufactured in this country, can the Minister say how one can discover where a motor car is built?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in a world of integrated plants with parts of cars being manufactured in different countries, it is becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly where the vehicles are manufactured. It is important that products, whether components or finished items, are made by British companies to standards that customers want to buy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in answering my Question the noble Lord said that the quantum of government support and export promotion was not the only factor; that another was the effort made by the private sector. Can he assure the House that, in respect of export promotion, the combined efforts of government and the private sector are rising year by year?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I assure all noble Lords that the efforts of government will be more effective year by year. The quantum of spend is different from the quality of spend. Too many people concentrate on inputs and not on outputs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not a fact that British industry's competitors have a tremendous advantage in that they pay reasonable interest rates? Have there not been many calls from the CBI conference for the Government to tackle overspending in another way?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have heard many siren songs emanating from the vicinity of Torquay. But the figures do not stand up. In examining long-term interest rates relative to rates of inflation, noble Lords will realise that ours are among the cheapest terms of interest in the top seven countries. In respect of shorter term interest rates, we are about halfway there. We must compare our rates of interest with the rate of inflation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it does not matter that we were losing out in the share of world markets if our volume of exports is rising. Does that not bode ill for our future competitive position because it must mean that our competitors are doing even better?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, because more countries in the world are exporting more manufactured goods. All Members of your Lordships' House occasionally forget the fact that we live by invisible exports as well as by the sale of manufactured goods. It is important that sales of British goods continue to expand in absolute terms. If we ensure that they continue to rise at the present rate we shall soon solve our problems.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that we are also losing our share of world invisible trade?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no, not to my knowledge.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some noble Lords who are associated with companies exporting to West Africa—both British and French ex-colonies—have noted with interest that the ex-French empire is now interested in buying from Britain and that ex-British colonies, which have been independent for 30 years, are also entering the market? Is the Minister aware that we are most grateful for the help we are receiving from the Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suggest that, rather than studying debating points within your Lordships' House, we look at the reputation around the world of British goods and services. That reputation stands infinitely higher than it did 10 years ago: it is my hope that it continues to rise.

Veterinary Students: Intake
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to increase the number of veterinary students.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the current pattern of provision reflects the outcome of the Government's last manpower review in 1985, conducted in conjuction with the veterinary profession. We shall, again in consultation, be considering whether a further review is needed and, if so, when.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer and for the assurance that he has given. Perhaps I may point out that the number of vacancies advertised in the BVA journal is unprecedented. There is a desperate shortage of vets in the North, the West, and particularly in Scotland, and there is no possibility of sufficient vets being trained in our universities to fill these vacancies. Is the Minister aware that if we do not investigate the situation earnestly it will become worse?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the recommendation that the annual intake of students by veterinary schools between 1986 and 1990 should be reduced from 335 to 302 was recognised by the review body to be fine-tuning of the highest order. Both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association are concerned that there may be an increasing shortfall against demand.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that vets who are now being trained will have insufficient specialist qualifications when the market is opened to vets from all countries in 1992?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no; I believe that the opposite will occur. The working party is considering the provision of veterinary education in the six veterinary schools and the scope for rationalisation.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I was chairman of the review body in 1983–84. Is my noble friend aware that the review body found great difficulty in trying to forecast the number of veterinary surgeons required in the early 1990s? Is he also aware that despite that difficulty, the review body recommended a reduction in the intake of students and that one of the factors considered was the continuing rise in the percentage of passes among the original entry of students?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston chaired the last review body and I am grateful for his comments. The Departments of Agriculture and of Education and Science, in consultation with the University Grants Committee and representatives of the veterinary profession, will discuss the need for a further review and, if one is required, when it should take place.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is there any danger that the faster we turn out veterinary surgeons the faster they will be absorbed on to popular television programmes?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is another Question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Viscount clarify the educational aspects of the issue? Is it right that the quality of students entering degree courses is of the highest level and that there is an enormous demand for young people to take the courses? Given that there is no unemployment among veterinary graduates, why do not the Government respond by providing the appropriate number of places?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the average student-staff ratio is approximately five to two. It is comparable with those in clinical medicine and clinical dentistry. Departmental university expenditure per full-time equivalent student is in the order of £8,500 per year, which is slightly higher than for clinical medicine and dentistry.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in addition to the points I have made, the BVA is concerned that countries such as Italy, Spain and Belgium are now producing more vets than is the United Kingdom? The time will come when veterinary surgeons from Europe and the EC will dominate our agricultural areas. It is vital that we keep pace in producing vets from our universities to match the possible intake which has already been mentioned and which could swamp us.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord said. Subject to satisfying certain requirements, including registration with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, veterinary surgeons
622
from other countries may practise in the United Kingdom and I have not received any complaints on that score.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have a nephew whose academic qualifications were not high enough for him to become a vet and he has now qualified as a doctor of medicine?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I was not aware of that but I am now.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the Minister throw any light on the rather persistent feeling among veterinary surgeons that there are plans for the closure of one or more of the six veterinary colleges?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, not at present.

Nursing Auxiliaries: Duties
3 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are any set proportions or quotas of particular grades for nursing auxiliaries which are being imposed on the service.
Lord Hesketh: No, my Lords.
Lord Peston: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer to that Question, and bearing in mind how admirable and devoted these nursing auxiliaries are, perhaps I may ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that they frequently work unsupervised and do work for which they are neither trained nor paid. Are the Government aware of that problem and are they thinking of doing anything about it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is no evidence to suggest that nursing auxiliaries are being used inappropriately or asked to undertake tasks for which they are not properly trained.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister say to what extent the current shortage of nurses could be met by a bigger influx of auxiliaries? Does he also accept that inadequate pay of auxiliary nurses is one factor which mitigates against the enrolment of nurses at present?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House are aware, there has just been a record pay deal for the nurses. As regards auxiliary nurses, their pay has increased by between 7·6 per cent. and 8·9 per cent. in the most recent settlement. That is above the average for both the public and the private sector.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to return to the theme, but bearing in mind that I am extremely disappointed at the noble Lord's statement as regards lack of evidence will he accept from me that the situation which I have described is certainly the case in mental hospitals, for example? Will he accept from

623
me and others evidence of precisely the kind I have mentioned; namely, that these excellent people are having to work unsupervised wards and do work for which they are not trained?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go beyond my second answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which was that we believe there is no evidence to suggest that nursing auxiliaries are being used inappropriately.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was once a nursing auxiliary in a casualty department and I did jobs that were way beyond the training which I had received? I am sure that still persists today.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was unaware of that position of the noble Countess, but I assure your Lordships that I would have had the utmost confidence had I been in her hands.

Crime Prevention: Initiatives
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What initiatives have been taken and what progress has been made on crime prevention.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, a range of initiatives are under way and encouraging progress is being made. Three areas have now agreed to take part in the safer cities programme, and six others have been invited to participate. The first phase of the Government's crime prevention publicity campaign with the new crime prevention handbook has received a very encouraging response from the public and the second phase of the campaign was launched this morning. Advertisements will appear in the national press from tomorrow.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. I should like to congratulate him on the way in which this scheme has grown. I hope we shall continue to produce as much propaganda for it as possible so that we have more and more of these schemes and more and more attempts to prevent the horrible crimes which we presently have in this country.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last weekend 200 young people from junior crime prevention panels met at a national conference in Wales organised by the police and commerce? It was very successful. No Minister of the Government had the time or ability to attend that conference. Can he explain why that was so?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I cannot answer in particular regarding the conference referred to by the noble Baroness. However, I assure her that my right honourable friend and all his colleagues are taking extremely seriously the whole area of crime prevention.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I must press this matter. When I was a Minister in the Government there was no way that the government of the time would have allowed an important conference like that, organised voluntarily by the police and commerce, to have no representation at all from Her Majesty's Government.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, yes, I heard that. Perhaps I may say that in passing.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that all citizens, particularly young citizens, have a part to play in crime prevention? Has he been able to persuade local councils and authorities, in particular ILEA, to allow the police to go into all schools so as to spread knowledge and enthusiasm for crime prevention among our young people?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes. I can reassure my noble friend that crime prevention with young people is very much a matter which the Government are bearing in mind and they will do all that they can to embrace all related initiatives.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the admirable work which is being done all over the country in the name of intermediate treatment? Is he also aware—I am sure he is—of the intermediate treatment fund, which is now in its tenth year and has already funded some 11,000 projects which include not only young people who have been referred from the courts but many other young people who are at risk of getting into trouble with the law, and young people generally? That is one of the most promising avenues in which to approach and deal with the prevention of crime.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in what he says and I am grateful to him for mentioning intermediate treatment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not very noticeable that in almost all the supplementary questions asked on this very important matter, youth has featured as the main item? In view of the fact that at the root of crime prevention one has to look at the cause of crime, would it not be a very good idea, in view of the seriousness of the proportion of youngsters in crime figures, for the Government to set up a commission to look specifically into the matter of youth and crime, its causes and cures?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of an objective look into the causes of problems concerning young people. Exactly how one goes about dealing with the problem is another matter and that is of course for my right honourale friend to decide.
Lord Renton: My Lords, further to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, is my noble friend the Minister aware that under the common law all citizens had a

625
duty to arrest people who had committed felonies, which are now understood to be arrestable offences? Will the Government take full advantage of that obligation and remind people at large of that duty?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am interested in what my noble friend said and I shall pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Phillips, who has considerable experience in this field, sought to put a question to the noble Earl about an important conference called by the police and industry. She asked the noble Earl why no Minister was present. Were the Government aware of that conference? If so, why did they not take steps to see that they were properly represented there?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I cannot comment on the thrust of the matter to which he alludes, but I shall certainly pass on his remarks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his courteous reply but will he be good enough to write to my noble friend on this matter?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl again consider the reply he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? A great many of us are extremely concerned about the increase in crime especially among young people. We know that the age at which there is a serious likelihood of crime being committed has fallen, and that has extremely serious implications. The Minister should again consider what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. At the same time, I ask the Minister to consider better aftercare provision for young people on completion of custodial sentences. It makes the greatest possible difference if there is adequate aftercare.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness in regard to the earlier supplementary of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Of course, I shall pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.

Business
3.11 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on student top-up loans.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Lyell to advance the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 from Monday, 14th November to Thursday, 10th November.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Integration of Disabled People: ECC Report
3.12 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Integration of Disabled People (13th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 77).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank my colleagues on the sub-committee for their co-operation in what proved to be a not very straightforward inquiry. I also thank our witnesses. some of whom were quite severely disabled; it must have been a considerable strain for them to come and give evidence to the sub-committee. We are indeed most grateful to them.
Behind the somewhat cool and detached prose of this report, there lie some deep human problems affecting the lives of many of our less fortunate citizens. It so happens that we are coming to the end of a Session in which the fortunes of the disabled in this country have been rather mixed. The Minister will be able to point, among other things, to the recent uprating exercise and the concession on the Housing Bill. Conversely, we have seen the rejection of a proposal which would have improved the prospects of the disabled being employed by contractors to local authorities.
We have experienced great delays over the implementation of the 1986 disabled persons Act and, indeed, the Griffiths Report. We have seen a not very satisfactory cobbling together of a non-statutory fund to try and plug one of the gaps left in the social security legislation and during the passage of the poll tax Bill there was the sad reversal of a decision taken by this House on behalf of the poor and the disabled. Now, as the Session draws to a close, we embark today on discussing what is possibly the European Commission's first approach to social policy in its rather narrow sense.
The subject on which the Treaty of Rome is silent and on which there must be some doubts about vires is touched upon in our report. The approach by the Commission has been a somewhat halting one, as I shall seek to show. It is an approach which lumps together the blind, the deaf, the crippled, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped under one general heading. However, leaving all that aside, and while I do not think there is any problem here for the Government about the Community enlarging its jurisdiction and encroaching cn national responsibilities, it is an approach which in a modest way raises questions of what kind of Community we are heading for and what kind of social provision we wish to see provided in that Community.
I turn to the report itself. It is a substantial and somewhat complicated document but at some risk of oversimplifying I shall try to pick out what I think are the main issues. The Community's first action

627
programme for the disabled was a four-year programme which should have run out at the end of last year but, in the event, was extended for some months into the early part of 1988. It concentrated on vocational aspects. In addition to some beefing-up of existing Community enterprises—in particular the network of rehabilitation centres—it introduced two new elements. The first—the kind of flagship of the programme—was a network of 19 local projects designed to pioneer ways of promoting the vocational opportunities for the disabled. The second was the development of a project for making information available to the disabled; first, on technical aids and, subsequently, over a wider field. This piece of information technology came to be blessed with the name of "Handynet"—a word to which your Lordships will, I fear, have to become accustomed as the debate proceeds.
The issue to which our report is addressed is the proposal that this first programme should be followed by a second action programme, again for four years but this time embracing not only vocational aspects but also, for the first time, social integration and independent living; phrases which are not all that easy to define. Again there were proposals for local projects and for the development of Handynet and it is to these two proposals that I propose to devote the remainder of my remarks.
I first refer to the local projects. To assess the new proposals we obviously needed to look at how this part of the first programme had worked out. Out of the total of 19 projects two were in this country—one in Lambeth and one in West Berkshire. There was a central liaison committee in Brussels and a national advisory committee here under the chairmanship of the DHSS, as it then was.
The two English schemes were considerably different from each other. Berkshire concentrated on vocational training for employment of the disabled in the field of information technology. Lambeth was more ambitious and sought to enable the disabled to take part in the decision-making processes, both of the project itself and of the local authority. As far as we could ascertain, both projects were reasonably successful and I should like to pay tribute to the help given by the Manpower Services Commission, as it then was, both to the projects and to the inquiry conducted by the sub-committee. I fear it is not possible to hand out bouquets of quite the same size to the Commission or to the DHSS.
The part of the Brussels directorate concerned is staffed by devoted and highly intelligent people but there is only a tiny number of them and their resources are very limited. It is not altogether surprising that they never managed to make it clear what was expected of the individual schemes. We formed the view that they did not do enough to consult interested bodies before arranging for the setting up of the schemes or during their operation. One touch of genius was to arrange for a seminar for those concerned to be held in an hotel which turned out to have no facilities for the disabled.
The Commission's representatives agreed that the liaison committee in Brussels had not been a success
628
and though it arranged for the appointment of assessors it did not give them much guidance as to how to set about evaluating the projects. For its part I fear that the DHSS failed to put any life into the national advisory committee here with the result that the two schemes received precious little help. The committee failed also to take any steps to give publicity to these two schemes—we soon learned that the members of the sub-committee were not alone in never having heard of them—or to see that what lessons were learned were widely disseminated.
We were also told that the department looked to an assessor appointed from Brunel to tell it what his judgment was on the success of the schemes whereas that same assessor told us that the department had approved his plan of campaign which specifically excluded making any such judgment.
How successful would be the second programme, we wondered, in overcoming these difficulties. This second programme was adopted by the council in April of this year at about the time that we were polishing off our report. It was christened the Helios programme. As I understand it, the individual schemes to be helped this time are not necessarily to be new schemes like those of Lambeth and Berkshire, but existing arrangements which may benefit from some boosting. We did not dissent from this approach but it will be interesting to learn from the Minister how matters are working out. As I understand it, applications have been sought for three projects in this country with what is described as an innovative approach to vocational rehabilitation and training and, this time, for four projects with a similar approach to social integration and independent living. The hope was to select the successful applicants in early October. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that this proved to be possible.
I believe that the training commission also sought applications for new rehabilitation centres; and there is a slightly mysterious proposition, falling outside the Helios programme for two projects to promote the integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how all this stands and whether it is proposed to publish a list of the successful applicants. Perhaps the Minister can also say whether the voluntary bodies, the employers and trade unions, are this time to be represented on a new liaison group in Brussels. Most important of all, I ask whether on this round the Government will themselves put more effort into helping and guiding these local projects; spreading the results of any lessons that are learned and, in short, getting value for money.
There is one additional point affecting Northern Ireland as regards these schemes and of which I gave notice to the Minister. However, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will be speaking about it and so I need not pursue the matter further. Instead I shall turn much more briefly to Handynet. Here the concept is that of a central computerised unit which, by linking up with national databases and by building in a multilingual translation, will make information available throughout the Community relevant to the needs of disabled people. A number of areas will be

629
covered in the plans; namely, access to buildings and to transport; aids and equipment; education; employment; and so on. If it were in operation and if, for example, one needed a special type of wheelchair one could get particulars of all the available types within the Community—there are a great many of them—with details of the after service provided. There may be the incidental advantage that the best products might then achieve rather longer production runs than they do now, and become cheaper.
If one were travelling to, say, Italy or Portugal, one could find out in advance what facilities were available on the aircraft and at the airport instead of being left to discover what they amounted to by bitter experience, as I know that three Members of this House have had to do. If one were posted to a service job in Germany or one's firm sent one to live in France, one could learn what facilities were available for the education, training and employment of one's handicapped children. But attractive though this prospect is, it is obviously quite elaborate and expensive and going well beyond the four years of the Helios programme, without any indication at present of where the necessary money would come from.
The United Kingdom Government have said in a pragmatic way that they will go along with an initial experiment called Handyaids, limited to technical aids and equipment, and that it would be best to wait and see how that works out. We on the sub-committee thought that that was a perfectly reasonable approach. However, we are aware that there is a good deal of experimentation going on, and perhaps the Minister can tell us how matters stand and whether I am right in thinking that there has been a successful test. Perhaps he can also say what are the prospects of a comprehensive UK database and of that base being compatible with similar bases in other member states.
There are many other aspects that I have not touched upon, but I have been talking quite long enough. I believe that there is an increasing, if a somewhat faltering, awareness of the needs of the disabled in this country. We now have some fresh information about the numbers of the disabled, and among other recent additions to knowledge about the problems of the physically disabled, the recent report of the Prince of Wales's advisory group on disability deserves special mention.
In conclusion, let me say this. One thing that stood out from our evidence was that even the experts did not know a great deal of what was going on in Europe. They were very much better informed about the United States of America and Scandinavia. Equally, there was a widely-held feeling that we should know more and that there are matters that we can learn from others and also show to others. If we are to be full and active members of the Community with extensive free movement, there should be a greater awareness and a greater pooling of experience in these matters. Although I have tried to show that the approach of the Community in Brussels has hitherto been somewhat halting and although the reaction of this country in the past has perhaps not been all that it might have been, there is a real issue
630
here about the future of the Community in its approach to social issues and about the kind of Community we want. It is no bad thing to be reminded of what we ought to do in this country about the disabled. These are the reasons why we thought it right to put forward the report for debate in the House today. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Integration of Disabled People (13th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 77).—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I must reluctantly start with an apology. Due to a longstanding commitment to be speaker at a nurses' graduation ceremony this evening, I am afraid that I must leave by six o'clock. If I have to miss the final stages of the debate I apologise most profusely. I shall read the proceedings with great interest.
Perhaps I may express very deep appreciation, which I am sure is shared by all members of the committee, of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We valued the masterly way in which he elicited so much important evidence and helped to shape it into a degree of coherence. This enabled us to draw the conclusions which form the substance of the report and of today's debate. This was no mean achievement, given the fact, as the report points out on page 8, that,
"the background to the enquiry embarked upon by the Committee was not only complicated but also somewhat confused and it took some effort on the part of the Committee to clarify the main issues".
I quote that masterly piece of tactful official understatement in order to highlight the difficulties we faced. They included confusion over definitions. paucity of comparitive data from other European countries and a lack of measurable outcomes from the evaluation of local projects in this country.
However, offsetting these problems, we were greatly helped, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, by the informative and often very moving evidence of witnesses, many with direct experience of various disabilities and also many with front-line experience of attempts to promote the social and economic integration of disabled people into the wider society.
Such witnesses gave many examples of good practices which merit recognition. As the noble Lord said, we believe that it would be very beneficial if information about these achievements were more widely disseminated throughout the Community. I should like to take this opportunity therefore to highlight one area where considerable progress has been made. The subject has already been touched upon, but I should like to develop it. I refer to the ideas and practices concerning independent living.
I wish to concentrate on this area because it is so important. Opportunities for independent living can do much to enhance the quality of life of disabled people, enabling many to live in the community who in previous times would almost certainly have been admitted to a residential institution. Independent living is also a challenge both to the disabled person and to those who care for him or her; and it may be fraught with risks for all concerned.

631
Before addressing the benefits and problems of policies designed to promote independent living, it is necessary to define the term. And here we immediately run into an illustration of one of the problems I mentioned earlier—the lack of a clear definition. The report, in paragraph 81 on page 18, points out:
"The Committee welcome the identification in the Second Action Programme of independent living as the overall aim of the Commission's initiatives. But they were surprised to learn that the Commission had not defined what it meant by independent living in the context of the many different types and degrees of disability. From the evidence they received it is clear that witnesses employed the term in different senses usually applicable only to one discrete group of disabled people".
This confusion over definition may lead to problems in the development of policies. We therefore urge that clarification of definition must be a priority. However, all definitions relating to groups of disabled people seem to include two essential criteria: first, an appropriate degree of autonomy for disabled people to control important aspects of their lives; and secondly, the availability of genuine choice.
The committee was not in favour of developing policy guidelines. However, we believe in the value of sharing ideas and information on good practice. One example from this country which we felt might be of interest to other countries is the use of volunteer workers to provide personal care in independent living schemes. This care is often given by volunteer workers on a one-to-one basis with the volunteers living in the homes of disabled people and providing intimate round-the-clock personal care. Without this help a disabled person might be obliged to leave home and be admitted to a residential institution. The organisation which has done so much to pioneer and promote these schemes is now famous for its work. I refer to the Community Service Volunteers, best known by its CSV initials.
Such work is clearly to be commended both for its highly beneficial effects in promoting independent living and for the opportunities it provides for the volunteers themselves to give this valuable form of service. However, precisely because the schemes draw on the generosity and goodwill of volunteers, many of whom are relatively young—often schooleavers—we believe that great care should be taken to ensure that they are adequately prepared for the demanding work they will undertake. We believe that they should be appropriately placed and adequately supported and supervised. The committee expressed concern, for example, that volunteers should receive adequate training in lifting techniques in order to help them to avoid back injuries. I know a number of young people who have gone to work in the homes of disabled people but who have not been given preparation before going. That is a dangerous position in which to place young people. They could injure their backs and give themselves a consequent disadvantage for life.
We believe also that there should be continuing emotional support for the volunteers as they confront situations which must at times be harrowing. It is also suggested that the successful completion of a period of service as a CSV worker should attract recognised credits which could be taken into account should the
632
volunteer subsquently apply to join a caring profession. Perhaps I may add a question. It does not appear in the committee's report; it has occurred to me subsequently. Will my noble friend the Minister consider the possibility of some arrangement whereby the experience of a volunteer could be combined with some educational input and count towards a qualification recognised by the NCVQ?
I know several young people who have served with CSV. I know a little about the quality of their work, the contribution they make, the enhancement of the quality of life of the disabled people for whom they have cared, and the enormous demands made on them. The fall in the number of schooleavers inevitably means there will be a problem in continuing to recruit the same numbers of young people into this kind of voluntary work which requires such total commitment. Therefore, if anything could be done to recognise and reward the value of their work, it would not only be well deserved but also desirable as a way of helping to encourage more recruits.
I should like to conclude on this note of appreciation of the work of CSV and other voluntary workers. They are an inspiration to us all. We talk a great deal now about community care. I have often expressed my reservations concerning this concept, with the premise that the community does care. I have voiced my concerns about the danger of neglect and the isolation of many vulnerable people who are least able to help and assert themselves. The wider issues of community care are the subject of a debate for another day. Suffice it to say today that among the more encouraging aspects of our work was evidence of the dedication of so many people in voluntary organisations of many kinds whose vision, commitment and hard work have done so much to help disabled people to be more fully integrated into the wider society and thereby to contribute to it.
It has been well said that a country is judged by the quality of care it provides for its most vulnerable citizens. I believe that as a nation we owe a great debt of gratitude to the countless volunteers who give so generously of themselves to help those in need, and thereby make our country a more humane and civilised place. They are an inspiration and an example; they make me feel very humble.

Student Top-Up Loans
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about future arrangements for student support.
"Two years ago I set up a review of student support to examine how the maintenance needs of students may be met. We have the most generous system of student support in the Western world, yet fewer of our young people enter higher education than in other European countries.

633
"In our 1987 election manifesto we said that the purpose of the review was to improve the overall prospects of students so that more are encouraged to enter higher education. We specifically mentioned top-up loans to supplement grants as one way of bringing in new finance to help students and to relieve pressure on their parents.
"The review has now been completed. We believe that the cost of student maintenance should be shared more equitably between students themselves, their parents and the taxpayer. The Government are therefore today publishing a White Paper which sets out our proposals to introduce a scheme of top-up loans for students. We propose that from 1990, in addition to their grant, all home students in full-time higher education, except postgraduates, will be eligible for a top-up loan averaging over £400 in a full year.
"This top-up loan facility will not be means-tested. Students will be able to take up as much or as little of it as they wish. The present grant arrangements will continue, but the overall levels of grant will be frozen in cash terms at their 1990 levels. As the grant also incorporates in most cases a parental contribution this means that over time the average parent will be paying less in real terms. From 1990, students' total resources in grant and top-up loan will continue to be reviewed annually. Any uprating to reflect cost increases will be applied only to the top-up loan facility until the top-up loan has risen to the same level as the grant and parental contribution taken together.
"The top-up loans will not bear a commercial rate of interest. Under the Government's proposals, top-up loans will be offered at a real interest rate of zero. The principle to be repaid will be uprated each year in line with inflation. Repayments will not start until the April after students complete their courses. Furthermore, repayments will be deferred when a graduate's income is low for any reason.
"In 1985 the Government announced their intention to remove students from the social security system. Accordingly the Government will end the general eligibility of students for social security benefits whether or not they qualify for top-up loans. Benefits will, however, continue to be available for students who are disabled or single parents, and for student's dependents.
"The level of the top-up loan will more than compensate the great majority of students for any loss of benefit. We estimate that the average level of social security benefit which would otherwise be claimed in 1990–91 is about £150: that compares with our loan facility of £420 in that year.
"I recognise, however, that there may be local circumstances where some further help may be needed; and postgraduate and further education students will not have access to loans. I will establish therefore three access funds, each of £5 million, to provide support on a discretionary basis to students in special financial need. The funds will be for postgraduates, other students in higher education, and students in further education. Their operation will be reviewed after three years. They
634
will be administered by the colleges, central institutions, polytechnics and universities throughout the United Kingdom: they are best placed to understand the circumstances of their students.
"The terms of the top-up loan scheme we are proposing are much more favourable than those of the borrowing on which many students rely at present. And instead of students having to rely on a social security system which was never designed for them, we shall be providing appropriate discretionary arrangements to help those in real need. This is a major step forward to achieving our target of more young people going into higher education.
"In the Government's view, the top-up loan scheme is best administered by the financial institutions. I am now embarking on discussons with them. I shall also consult the funding councils and representatives of the local authorities and the higher and further education institutions about other aspects of my proposals. The Government will bring forward a short Bill to allow the new regime to be introduced from autumn 1990.
"These proposals represent an important step away from the dependency culture. Students will have a financial stake in their own future, and this will encourage greater economic awareness and self-reliance. The burden of student support on taxpayers and parents will be reduced, For the first time there will be a guaranteed extra source of income for students over and above their grants and parental contributions. By introducing top-up loans, we fulfil the undertaking we gave in our manifesto at the last election."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which is being given in another place by his right honourable friend. The Statement on the financing of students in higher education, for which we have been waiting for two years, has clearly been a very hot potato to handle.
Our first reaction is that access to higher education will not be encouraged by the Statement. Students, even with loans not bearing a commercial rate of interest, will be building up debt to be repaid at the beginning of their earning careers. Moreover, as the loan becomes larger and the percentage of grant less as the years go by, that debt will increase. There will be many young people from working class families, many women, and many family men and women who will be highly nervous of taking on the burden of debt involved.
It seems that parents will have their contribution reduced and that the burden will be put on the young person. At present, the richer the parents the higher the parental contribution. But, under the proposed plan, the richer the parent the more they will benefit from the new system, because instead of paying their child the young person will take out a loan.
It seems that costs in year one will be £120 million. The savings to the public purse will be £200 million in future years. Is that sum to be used elsewhere in

635
higher education?—because there seems to be no evidence of that. I ask the Minister whether that is correct. Further, what will be the position of those on discretionary grants from LEAs? Is the £5 million in the access fund supposed to cover students on discretionary grant, because surely it is totally inadequate for that?
My final comment is that the Statement seems to fit in with the Government's philosophy of getting rid of the "dependency culture", as they say, and especially with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as we have seen in the last few days—that money should be targeted. The result will inevitably be that the poorer members of the community will come off worst and the better off will come off best.
The need for more people in higher education is recognised by industry, the professions and the commercial world; but not, it seems, by the Government. What is there to encourage greater access and to create new places? Why is there nothing to encourage 16 year-olds to stay on at school or further education colleges? It is the wastage here that must be faced if the numbers in higher education are to be substantially increased.
Finally, can the Minister reassure us that tuition fees will remain as they are at present?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. We do not take a doctrinaire view of the question of loans for students, but our test is whether in fact it will have the effect of increasing access to higher education for a larger proportion of the population than at present. Of course, that means increasing access for people from working class families, especially social classes four and five, who are greatly unrepresented in the universities at present. It also means increasing access for women and girls and also for mature students.
In the future, because of the backlog of people who are capable of benefiting from higher education in this country, but who have not had it, we must pay a great deal of attention to mature students of both sexes. The question is: does the scheme make it more or less likely that people from those categories will go into higher education? If it does, we welcome it; but, if it does not, then we do not welcome it. I must say that I am not convinced that the scheme, as it stands, will have that effect.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, that inevitably means that students will build up a burden of debt. It is all very well to say that more money will be available from the loan than from social security, which is another aspect of the matter. Of course the loan is a loan, and the grant, whether it came from social security payments, the DHSS, the Department of Education and Science or the parent, did not have to be repaid. A greater amount of the money will be a loan.
The Government say that the loan has to be repaid but that it will be deferred if the graduate is earning below a certain amount. Deferred implies that the loan must ultimately be repaid. Is that the case if the graduate never reaches the higher levels of payments
636
implied by the scheme? In particular, how will that provision apply to a woman who takes a university course, builds up a debt, works for three or four years in a low-paid job, and then spends five or six years at home bringing up a family and not earning? Has she at some future date still to repay the money? If that is the case, there will be fewer and not more women entering higher education. That is the question to which we need an urgent answer before we can give any support to the scheme.
I should like to ask about the exclusion of postgraduates. We in this country have a shorter period of higher education than any other comparable country. We compress undergraduate work into three years. If we are to have the level of trained people for the higher grades that we increasingly need, we must encourage and not discourage a variety of postgraduate work; and yet the Statement says that postgraduates are not to have access to the loan scheme. The postgraduate will have access to a total of £5 million which has to cover a large number of people. As outlined in the Statement, access to that money will be means tested. That is what the Statement means. That surely implies that the large number of people who are capable of doing postgraduate work but whose incomes are not at such a low level that will justify a loan or who may not at that stage wish to take a loan, will not take the postgraduate courses which the economy will require them to take.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear, for receiving the Statement in the manner that they did. I am not sure that I shall be able to answer all the questions here and now. Most of the answers to the noble Baronesses' questions are contained in the White Paper.
I shall take one or two points. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about fees. The loan system relates only to student maintenance. There is no proposal to change the present system by which fees are paid as part of the mandatory award. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the responsibility of spouses. The repayment will be individually calculated on the basis of personal earnings. A spouse's income will not be taken into account. A woman or a man who interrupts her or his career while raising children may make no repayments during that period until income rises to the repayment threshold on return to employment.
The postgraduate grant is not affected. Postgraduates will still receive grant and will have access to the access fund in addition.
The need is for an extra form of support. The present system cannot meet students' needs without burdening parents and taxpayers unreasonably. More money in grant is not an option. We are offering extra money. For most, the £420 loan facility in 1990–91 is over and above the present grant. It will be a substantial net addition to students' resources, especially in the 35 per cent. of cases where parents do not pay their full contribution.
By sharing the cost we shall relieve the burden on parents and taxpayers. The parental contribution will

637
come down by nearly half over time, and if the noble Baroness looks at the White Paper she will see that in chart 8 on page 15.
For 30 years Britain has had the most generous student support system in the world, but participation in higher education continues to be relatively poor. A smaller proportion of our young people (32 per cent.) enters higher education than in the countries of many of our main competitors. The socioeconomic groups C2, D and E constitute 61 per cent. of our 18 year-old population, but supply only 21 per cent. of university entrants and 27 per cent. of polytechnic entrants. Therefore, they are considerably under-represented in higher education. Our plans are that they will be better represented in higher education in the future.
The Government aim to expand higher education, which has already risen by 180,000 students since 1979. We need a more flexible student support system to underpin that expansion and the broadening of entry which we seek. Loans will be available to all full-time higher education students, except postgraduates who will be covered by the other scheme, irrespective of their entitlement to grant. Students will also be able to seek help from one of the three access funds.
As my right honourable friend said in the Statement, he is establishing three new access funds totalling £15 million to be administered by the institutions. It will he up to the institutions to decide how to target the money. The funds will provide discretionary bursaries in cases of special financial need. All students, including those without grants, will be eligible. That will enable institutions to attract more students.
I cannot go further than that at the moment, but I commend to your Lordships the White Paper which contains the answers to many of the points that have been raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in taking this decision, has consideration been given to the possibility that the fact that graduates will start their working life with an obligation to repay a debt may be an inducement to some of them to work abroad, from where it may be difficult to recover the debt?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that point has been considered. It will be up to the financial institution providing the loan to ensure that the loan is repaid.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we too should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating that important Statement. The urgent need in higher education, as has been said by all speakers so far, is to widen access and to increase the age participation rate. Despite its relative generosity compared with other countries, the present grant system has not succeeded in encouraging participation by lower income families. The parental contribution element often causes family friction in higher income groups. To restore the eroded value of grants and expand higher education at the same time would be enormously expensive. We therefore accept that some reform is necessary.
638
If the desired expansion is to take place it will clearly have to be through some system of contribution by students to their own careers. The question is: what system? Which is the fairest? At first sight, the Government's proposal does not seem to do anything to encourage the student from the poorer family as the basic grant element is to be frozen from 1990, leading presumably to a larger loan element which will eventually form 50 per cent. of the complete package. Is my interpretation correct? In the long run, will it be 50 per cent. grant and 50 per cent. loan? I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would let me know if that is correct.
The Statement also mentions that further repayments will be deferred when a graduate's income is low for any reason. Will the noble Viscount define "low"? What does he mean by that term? Does he mean that the person is on unemployment benefit, on the national average wage, or will there be some other measure? That point is crucial to the system.
Finally, have the Government completely ruled out the Australian Government's plans for a more generous grant to be partly recouped by a postgraduate tax? Under that scheme, the repayment would be deferred when the graduate's income falls below the national average. Has that scheme been completely ruled out?
I repeat access is the main consideration. The access funds do not seem to be generous. The effect of the Statement will be judged by its effect upon access in the long run.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Australian scheme has been considered, but, as the noble Lord said, the repayment will be liable to tax. I think that I shall have to write to the noble Lord as regards the amount of the build-up and the discharge of the debt of the student commencing a three-year course in 1990. I recommend the noble Lord to look at Chart 9 on page 16 of the White Paper which sets this out. I do not know whether the noble Lord has a copy of the White Paper. It sets out the answer in a much better way than I can.
As regards the 50 per cent. grant and the 50 per cent. loan, the answer is yes. If the income is low, that will be defined in discussion with the banks. I repeat that there still have to be discussions with the banks as to the details of the loans and how they are to be worked out. My right honourable friend will be holding discussions with the financial institutions over the next year.
4 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not answered my question about the repayment. If at no time people reach a high or adequate level of earning in order to repay the loan, is the debt ever cancelled? Do they carry the debt to the grave? That is the point I am trying to get at.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is deferred, I think, until the age of 50.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I am probably one of the few and maybe

639
the only Member of your Lordships' House who went on to college on a local authority loan instead of a grant? I can tell your Lordships that I was impoverished for the first few years of my working life. That is what this Government will re-introduce.
Has the noble Viscount really considered the financial burden that this will place on new graduates, especially those going into poorer paid jobs such as teaching and social work? All the Minister can offer is to extend the misery for a longer period. Has he considered—because he has not replied to the question—the extremely valid and important point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the negative dowry? There is the case of the woman graduate who, for very good family reasons, cannot stay in continuous employment. What about her? She will be burdened with this negative dowry for many years.
Does the noble Viscount deny the evidence from other countries that student loans are a greater deterrent to young people from poorer families entering higher education than to those from better off families? Does he deny that? All the evidence points to it.
Who ultimately will pay the cost? These loans will increase the demand and increase the pressure for higher graduate salaries in commerce and industry. The noble Viscount may find this a joke. It is not a joke to the young chap leaving education and having to pay for it. It is not a joke at all. It is not a joke to the thousands of students who cannot make ends meet now because of this dreadful Government. Ultimately this will lead to higher pressure on salaries which will add to the costs of commerce and industry. It will distort the labour market by driving graduates from socially necessary but less well paid jobs such as teaching into better paid jobs. This appalling, dreadful, discredited and miserable Government are once more putting the clock back 50 years.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, had to pay interest on his loan. The point about these loans is that they are interest free. It is nothing new for students to borrow money. One important finding of the survey of undergraduate income and expenditure was that almost half the students covered expected to have debts outstanding at the end of the year surveyed. The average amount which those students owed was £341. About 40 per cent. of the students had overdrafts; 15 per cent. had credit card debts; 6 per cent. borrowed from friends or relatives; and just under 2 per cent. had commercial loans averaging £662.
The whole point of the scheme is that these will be top-up loans. They will average £420 per year, with repayment of the capital after the graduate has found a job. If he cannot afford the repayment immediately, that repayment will be deferred until he can afford it. It must surely be right that those who receive the benefit of higher education should at some stage pay back to the country what they have derived from that higher education.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that the contents of the Bill will not be decided upon by the Government until the White Paper has been fully discussed in both Houses?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am quite sure that there will be an opportunity to discuss the White Paper in both Houses. Of course I cannot speak for another place and indeed I cannot speak for this place. The matter has to be decided through the usual channels. However, I shall make my best endeavours to ensure that it will be discussed.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount for not being in my place when he rose. I got here as soon as possible. I shall read his opening remarks in Hansard with the greatest of interest.
Have the noble Viscount and the department in their thinking taken into account a most remarkable publication by Barr and Barnes, two academics at the London School of Economics, under the title of The Alternative White Paper? They have worked out an extremely closely reasoned scheme of a mixture, according to the heart's desire, of different ways of going about the problems with which we are faced. When I read the publication, it seemed to me to open new horizons in my own thinking. I wish to ask the noble Viscount whether he has had any regard to this publication. If not, I shall be delighted to provide him with a copy in order that his department may look at it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend and the department will have read this publication. I personally have not; I shall be very happy to receive a copy from the noble Earl.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, I had no intention, when he and I exchanged words earlier, of speaking this afternoon. I had not then heard the Statement. I had no means of knowing its significance. I believe that the noble Viscount is old enough to remember the post-1945 era in education in this country. It was the period when the bipartisan development of an education scheme for the country had produced a wholly new mood in education. We went into our classrooms—those of us who were in education—with joy and with a commitment because the country had borne the expense (not a very great expense either in relative terms) of our education. We were being given the opportunity to pass it on to others. Some of us, for all our lives thereafter in the classroom, tried to improve that education. It was a positive bipartisan approach to the education of the children of this nation.
At this time, when we know that the classrooms are in chaos and that the people in the staffrooms are feeling miserable about their future, is there really any need to make the situation worse?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the simple answer is that we are not planning to make it worse. We are planning to make it better.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, even at this early stage of the matter could I ask the Minister to be more specific as to why he thinks it will encourage the children of weekly wage earners to go into higher education? That is one of the most crucial issues in higher education. I am not totally opposed to loans in all circumstances. However, I fail entirely to see why they should encourage a working class family to send its children into higher education.
Secondly, when, on his own evidence, people are already heavily in debt, does the noble Viscount think that this is the moment to encourage them to get even further into debt? Surely, we are a debt ridden society. We do not want to encourage people to think that debt is a normal feature of life.
Thirdly, can the noble Viscount say a little about the extra burden that will be placed on universities' administration? The universities are already heavily burdened with administration. Are the Government going to pursue the laggards who do not pay? Are the universities going to be responsible in any way for these loans? Who is going to undertake the whole burdensome business of collecting the loans and organising the entire scheme which the noble Viscount has outlined?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as regards the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I have already said that discussions are taking place with the banking institutions to see how the scheme can best be administered by them. There is no evidence that use of loans in student support systems elsewhere has in practice had the effect of reducing the representation of lower social and economic groups. In any case, like others they will be protected by the income-responsive repayment scheme. Loans will reduce the dependence of less advantaged children on parents who are hard pressed to help them.
I must repeat that these are interest free loans. They will not be liable to means testing. Therefore they should be acceptable to all students in higher education. They do not have to be taken up in full; they can be taken up in part. It will be up to the individual student to decide on his financial future with this advantage to start him off.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not doubt that some changes are needed in the system of student support, if only because a great many students are now living in very considerable hardship. I say that both as a principal of a higher education institution and as a parent trying to discourage the bank overdraft. We cannot continue with a situation in which students cannot afford to buy enough books and sometimes cannot even afford to eat properly.
The noble Viscount speaking on behalf of the Government admitted in the Statement that,
"fewer of our young people enter higher education than in other European countries".
I see absolutely nothing in the Statement which will alter that disgraceful situation. Where are the proposals to use the longer-term savings that will eventually be derived from the proposed changes to expand the overall numbers in higher education? Where are the proposals to provide access and
642
return-to-study courses? Where are the proposals to support the 16 to 19 year-olds staying on in full-time education whose parents have to bear the cost despite being extremely hard up? Where are the proposals to help those on courses which do not benefit from mandatory awards at present? I assure noble Lords that many students on such courses are currently struggling because they cannot obtain discretionary grants.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, why should postgraduate students be omitted from these proposals? It is increasingly difficult for talented young people who want to come back to do a postgraduate course to obtain a grant. Where are the proposals to make it easier for mature students to study? There is nothing in this document about that. What is to be done to help part-time students who appear yet again to be excluded? Part-time students make very considerable sacrifices to come back into higher education. They have to bear the costs of their travel, their books, their examination fees and other things, as well as paying fees for tuition out of taxed income. Will they benefit from the access funds? It appears not.
Instead, we have here a scheme which seems to be kowtowing to the Conservative Back-Benchers in another place, allowing well-off parents with children in higher education, such as myself, who are paying the full parental contribution, to pay a reduced parental contribution because of the availability of loans. Is that really justice or fairness? It seems to me to be highly regressive. Is it conducive to expanding opportunities and the creation of more qualified manpower in this country? I submit that it is not. Will the noble Viscount please answer my specific questions?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, I cannot. There were far too many of them. I believe the noble Baroness knows that. I can tell the noble Baroness that part-time students are not covered by the scheme. Access funds will help those on courses for which there are no grants available. The postgraduate grant will continue unchanged.
Three access funds will provide additional support for full-time students in further education, higher education, and postgraduates in the form of discretionary bursaries. Those will be available in cases where access to further and higher education might be inhibited by real financial difficulties. From that point of view loans and bursaries will be available.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I share with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, considerable admiration for the paper produced in the London School of Economics. It offers, I believe, the possibility of an advance from a system of student funding which sooner or later, in one way or another, will be reformed. However, that enthusiasm does not spread to the scheme before us this evening. As this is an educational occasion, perhaps Latin may be permitted: parturiunt Jackson nascetur ricliculus mus.

643
We have here an alteration in the way the existing student body is to be financed. One could say that it is an improvement for parents or even for students, but nothing has been said by the noble Viscount to infer that any additional students will be brought into the system. This is not an access move: it is simply a recasting of the current form of student finance. That, after two years, is a very great disappointment.
We had thought that two years of the employment of Mr. Jackson's ingenuity would produce something really interesting in the way of an expansion, which this country badly needs, at both the undergraduate and the postgraduate level. To take one particular point, after two years we are told that the Government are now going to ask the banks how they propose to administer a scheme. Questions have already been raised about how the Government propose to get people to pay back. We know of the experience in other countries. One would have thought that if the scheme is to be administered through the banks, the Government might have asked the banks before they produced their White Paper. How do we know that the banks will not say that they are not accustomed to interest-free loans? They may say that it is not a normal part of their high street business. They may tell the Government to go away. Where will the Government be then?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of everything my noble friend says. All I can say is that I shall make sure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I have no intention of making a speech. I merely wish to ask a question, or perhaps two. Will the noble Viscount tell us whether there is any encouragement in the Government's programme for students to be able to earn money in addition to receiving loans? Or will they, if they earn money, find that they are not eligible for loans? I say that because it is well known that in America it is perfectly customary for students to—as it is put—work their way through college. Students hold jobs in libraries, and in administration; they wash up dishes. They do not regard that in any way as derogatory to their status.
Will the Government bear that in mind and, if necessary, hold consultations with the unions concerned—with ASTMS, NUPE and NALGO? Will the noble Viscount also reply to the point about postgraduates which has been made by a number of noble Lords? The point is simply this: is there not a contradiction between what the noble Viscount said about savings to the taxpayer and this desire for more access to higher education?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, in answer to the latter part of the question of the noble Lord, I said that postgraduate grants would not be affected. Postgraduates will still receive the grant, and they will get the access fund on top of that. As regards students who work during the long vacations, that situation will not change in any respect whatever. They will all be entitled to borrow up to £420 a year, on top of any
644
other earnings that they might make. I know that the Government will encourage that, as they have done in the past.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, may I presume that the noble Viscount is not aware that I share with my noble friend Lord Glenamara the somewhat dubious distinction of having gone to university in part funded by a loan—in my case from a local ironmaker rather than from a local authority. Does the noble Viscount accept my view that far from making me feel that I thereby escaped the dependency culture, it made me feel very dependent indeed? It made me feel more of a second-class academic citizen compared to those who had come from local authorities where funding of a more generous character was available. Does not the noble Viscount agree with me that the best way to recoup the value to the individual of a university education is by a more progressive income tax structure than we have at the present time?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that last point is, I think, another question. I am not surprised that the noble Lord agrees with his noble friend Lord Glenamara. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he paid interest on his loan when he was studying. The whole point of the scheme is that the loans are interest free and available to everybody.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, has the noble Viscount noted that all the remarks made so far have been either critically questioning or downright hostile and that no spark of enthusiasm has been aroused in any part of the House? Will he make that clear to his ministerial colleagues?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that I am usually quite observant and I shall certainly report to my right honourable friend who I am sure will read this exchange in Hansard with interest. I shall make sure that he is aware of it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before the noble Lord opposite gets up—and I shall not ask him not to—I should point out that we have been debating this issue for 35 minutes. Your Lordships are masters of your own procedures and have recommended through your Procedures Committee that questions on Statements should last for 20 minutes. We have now gone on for 35 minutes. I wonder—if the noble Lord opposite asks his question and makes his point—whether the House would consider that it was then time to proceed with the rest of the business.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am indebted to the Government Chief Whip. He was not here earlier and did not hear the suggestion that we might debate the subject in its entirety.
Perhaps I may introduce a slightly acerbic note into our proceedings by asking the noble Viscount whether he realises how insulting some parts of the Statement are, in particular the sentence in the concluding paragraph about students and the dependency culture.

645
Many noble Lords were once students. Some of us were students from very poor backgrounds. When I received my full grant—which I seem to recall was £100—I was not under the impression that I was a parasite. I am also not under the impression that I have failed to repay to our country everything I received when I was a student. I believe that those remarks are extremely insulting.
In relation to the remark that students will "have a financial stake", what does the noble Viscount believe students have done for years? They have met a large part of the cost of their education for a great many years. They are perfectly well aware of the costs and the economic aspects of this matter.
To suggest that students lack self-reliance is also insulting. How does the noble Viscount think that we achieve such extraordinarily high standards in our higher education in this country if our students lack self-reliance? It seems to me that this is a most insulting document and one the Government would do well to withdraw.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not quite sure to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is referring when he talks about an insulting document. Is he referring to the White Paper or to the Statement in another place which I have repeated?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was referring to the final paragraph of the Statement which seems to me to set the tone of this whole business, as other noble Lords have pointed out.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord on that point. I repeated a Statement which was made in another place and I do not agree that it is insulting. I am surprised by the reaction on the Benches opposite. I should have thought that any scheme which allows any person in higher education to borrow £420 per annum over five years without paying any interest is something that should be welcomed and not thrown away.

Integration of Disabled People: ECC Report
4.24 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in returning to the report on the integration of disabled people I should like to begin by adding my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the way in which he chaired the committee and also for his very comprehensive introduction to the report this afternoon.
In my remarks I do not intend to talk about the problems of disabled people as such nor about some of the excellent schemes that were outlined to the committee. I say that not because I am not aware of the deep human problems that were presented to us and to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred but because I believe that some of my colleagues on the committee will concentrate on those issues.
For my part I want to look at the problem the committee found in putting the subject into a
646
European context. Again I do so because I believe that there is a general problem in this regard, not one which is related to the area of this particular inquiry alone but a more general problem. That means that I shall be dealing with constitutional competence, structures, common objectives and ways and means of transferring experience.
The issue of constitutional competence of the Community in social affairs is likely to recur time and time again. The report before the House this afternoon refers to that point at paragraph 69:
"The European Community has not hitherto been involved to any significant degree in social welfare problems and other aspects of social policy except in so far as they affect employment policies and opportunities. Indeed, it can be argued that those who drafted the Treaty of Rome never contemplated that it should".
The second action programme which was the subject of our report was based on two separate proposed decisions. The first proposed decision dealt with the vocational rehabilitation of disabled people, the second with their social integration. The question of competence arose in relation to the latter. However, given the nature of the issue; namely, the integration of disabled people, it was not difficult to blur the boundaries of competence.
To provide vocational rehabilitation of the disabled immediately drives one to the provision of welfare facilities in order to buttress the employability of such people. The more disabled a person is the more necessary the second objective becomes. For example, for a lone person who is severely disabled there can be no possibility of vocational rehabilitation without either institutional care or care in the community. Therefore the dilemma of extension into the social sphere by the Community is likely to occur in different situations as the Community progresses.
So I should like to draw attention to the second part of paragraph 69, which I think is of tremendous importance. It reads:
"However, as this Committee have already said in a previous report, they believe that in the long term there can be no real Community if Member States adopt totally different solutions to common social problems".
Although the first action programme had not been systematically appraised before we moved on to the second action programme it was quite clear that there were many structural weaknesses that needed to be corrected. That was true both at Community and at national level. The most glaring example at both levels seemed to be the failure to involve fully both the disabled themselves and voluntary agencies in the policy and planning of the programme, in other words, not to take fully into consideration the views of those who would be at the receiving or the giving end of the work at grass-roots level. Structures for communication in the Community upwards, downwards and across appeared to he deficient and the committee were not fully convinced from the evidence that that problem had been put right.
Turning to common objectives, the report says at paragraph 56 that:
"The witnesses were more or less unanimous in confirming the primary importance of the issue of independent living".
That was one of the principal objectives in the second action programme.

647
Both the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the difficulties of defining objectives. Indeed, the noble Baroness quite rightly said that when there is confusion about defining objectives there is also subsequent confusion in determining policies. However, it was difficult, on the committee, to get a definition that had been previously agreed. Mr. Derek Prag, the MEP witness who appeared before the committee, gave us a definition of independent living at Question 383. He said:
"To me it is enabling a disabled person to do things for himself or herself, rather than being dependent on able-bodied people to do them for him or her".
He went on to say that meant, in terms of transport and of access, that much more needed to be done than is being done currently. Here again we see the relationship between the definition of common objectives and the policies which flow from them.
However, it seems to me that there should be no problem about the Community sharing common objectives even if we have diverse ways of realising those objectives. There is a parallel with the principle of equal opportunities for women and men which the Community has espoused. While each country has its own laws, structures and policies on the subject, simultaneously common European case law is being developed and common strategies within the Community are being built. The same process, I suggest, could and should happen with the integration of disabled people.
There is already one area, we were told, where there is a common move across Europe: that is, towards care in the community. This is not just a British initiative. It is not only a Community initiative but one which occurs in different parts of the world; but within the Community it seems that this is a general trend. Equally, it was clear from the witnesses that there is a shared acceptance of the fact that care in the community is not a cheap alternative to institutional care. So we are conscious, at Community level as well as at national level, of the cost that will be involved in this kind of care.
In this whole area there is scope for exchanging experiences and in some cases transferring the benefit of those experiences from one country to another. However, this process depends on channels of communication and on networks in each country and in Europe. Again, the evidence conveyed to the committee was that these networks are inadequate. Even in the United Kingdom it seemed that for the first action programme adequate channels of communication were lacking, and even more so at the European level.
As the chairman has indicated, the committee found itself in an extremely difficult situation over obtaining information about what was happening in other European countries. Nobody had collated information on any aspect either of the extent of the differences between groups of the disabled or on the activities of the different groups of disabled. We were told it is estimated that between 5 per cent. and 9 per cent. of the Community's population are handicapped. The Commission itself put this figure at around 30 million, but the vagueness of those
648
statistics speaks for itself. We do not know whether it is 5 per cent. or 9 per cent. That is in terms of numbers. There is also nothing about the intensity or nature of disability.
The DHSS witnesses, in response to Question 136 on care in the community, said there was quite a lot of information in their department on various databases about what goes on in other countries and that it could be assembled, but that they were not sure if that had ever been done. I feel sure they would have known if such data had been collated and assembled. So although information may exist we are not utilising it to the full, and the valuable area of learning from each other and sharing experiences is being neglected. Clearly it would be much easier for us to develop common approaches if we had adequate data on which to do so. That is why the committee, without fully committing itself to the Handynet proposal, felt there was need for such a system to be brought into existence.
This inquiry has underlined the importance of knowing the extent of common problems within the Community, how those problems are being dealt with and how far other countries' solutions can help us. As well as throwing light on this particularly difficult issue we have been considering, which arouses so much sympathy across the board, it has also demonstrated that some of the recurring problems in this whole process will appear from time to time as we move towards a strengthening of the Community.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, as I did not serve on the committee, I should like to begin by thanking its members for producing this most interesting and informative report. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the thoughtful way in which he introduced it to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The committee has been concerned with the success or otherwise of the first action programme and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Allen, the first action programme consisted of three main elements: the work of the European Communities employment rehabilitation network, the 19 direct projects, two of which were in the United Kingdom (one in Lambeth and one in Berkshire) and Handynet, the plan to link the databases dealing with disability throughout the Community.
When one tries to assess the results of the programme and the achievements under these three headings, I think one is quite clear at the outset that the rehabilitation network is successful, but of course it has been in operation for some 13 years—a longer period by three times than the actual period of the programme. One wonders how far what has happened during the period of the programme would have happened in any event; but certainly we can say that the rehabilitation network is successful.
Looking at the projects—and the evidence in the report is mainly about the two projects in this country: one co-ordinating services for the disabled in Lambeth and the other training the disabled for employment in information technology in

649
Berkshire—I think we must accept that both have considerable achievements to their credit. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said so in his opening remarks.
When one turns to Handynet, it is much more open to question. It is clear that Her Majesty's Government are sceptical and concerned about expense. I was very impressed by the evidence of Mr. Waring, the Berkshire project leader, and Mr. Daunt, the former head of the European Commission bureau, for action in favour of disabled people. They both felt that this was the age of information technology and if we could not achieve this network of databases on disability within Europe we were failing to meet the challenge of the times. I very much hope that the project will develop satisfactorily, even if slowly. In the long run it could be of great potential.
In looking at these three elements within the first programme, we see that there are successes; but there are also some clear lessons for the future for the second action programme. The structure of the plan of the programme comes in for a great deal of criticism. The committee says that the management structure is defective in several respects. A more executive-type leadership seems to be necessary. The national steering committee certainly does not seem to have impressed anyone. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was not very impressed by the community liaison committee. Reform of the structure committee is obviously essential.
Secondly, all speakers in the debate so far have made it clear that there is a need for a better and wider flow of information. Too many of the participants knew only a little of what was going on in other parts of the Community, and many of the people with a direct interest in the subject knew almost nothing about what was happening. This leads one on to the need for greater consultation. It is extraordinary that organisations of and for the disabled very often figured among those who knew little or nothing about what was going on in regard to the programme. Therefore, a better flow of information and more emphasis on consultation are necessary.
The need for participation of disabled people appears not to have been taken into consideration very deeply by the organisers. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, a seminar in connection with the programme was held in a place where the accommodation was unsuitable for disabled people.
The problem of evaluation and assessment had a good deal of attention from the committee. It was concerned about the diversity of evaluation as between one country and another and about who appointed the national evaluator in each country. When Mr. Daunt explained the relationship between the community level of evaluation and national level it seemed not so unreasonable, but I think that that relationship was not widely understood lower down the scale, and not enough guidance was given to national evaluators. Some effort must be made to assess the whole operation to ascertain whether the original objective has been achieved. There must be some estimate of the positive outcome.
650
What happens to projects at the end of the programme is a point that also arose in the committee discussions. I understand that two projects in this country are still in existence. One has moved to Hampshire. I do not know about the position of the other. At the time of the completion of the report both were determined to continue in operation, but were experiencing considerable funding difficulties, having come to the end of their original funding. The second action programme will probably be better in this respect than the first because it is to be based on projects already in existence when the programme began.
The second action programme was originally intended to be based on two decisions of the Community, one to deal with vocational rehabilitation, the other with social integration. The main theme running through it is to be idependent living, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred. I wonder whether "independence" is the best word in this connection. The word "autonomous" may be nearer to what we are trying to say. We want to ensure that disabled people can make decisions about their own lives. They may not be able to achieve the kind of independence that able-bodied people have because they need to rely on others for simple domestic tasks. Thus they are not freely independent in that sense. The noble Baroness spoke of the work that volunteers do in this connection. I think that the word "autonomous" comes closer to what we mean to say.
I was interested in the evidence of Mr. Peter Large of the disablement income group. He put the spotlight on benefits and pointed out that in this country we have a fit or sick policy in regard to invalidity pensions but no partial pensions for different degrees of disability like many other countries in the Community. He also expressed fears about the operation of the new social security regime in this country in April. That is of particular significance in the week when the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have produced their report on how the new system has been working in the early stages. They claim that as a result of the change 82 per cent. of the poorest recipients of social security are worse off than they were before. I saw no mention of that evidence in the main report, possibly because it deals with matters beyond the scope of the first and second action programmes. For all that, it is well worth reading and I commend it to the House.
A certain amount of discussion has taken place about whether the programmes should be based on resolutions that are not binding, as was the first programme; or, as proposed in the second, on a decision binding on member states. The committee thinks that it should be done by resolution. I do not believe that the United Kingdom Government are particularly worried about the use of decisions. That was my impression from reading the evidence. I wonder whether that is correct.
If action is taken on the various points of criticism that have emerged from the inquiry as set out in the report, to some of which I have referred, I am sure that we may hope for another stimulating report in four years' time.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has led us through somewhat difficult pastures with his usual skill and charm, and I pay tribute to him.
I should like to make a number of comments about the changing background of the first and second action programmes which has been occurring quite independently of the proposals in the European programmes, and to make one suggestion for the future. The committee was taken aback to discover that important bodies in this country such as the Cheshire Foundation had never been consulted when the original programme was drawn up. However, it was then even more surprised to discover that there was not close contact between members of the same charity working in this country and in Europe.
It is interesting and relevant that the Community began with a great worry about youth unemployment which was shared in many countries. This led to the movement towards thinking together about youth information. There is now a Europe-wide network of people influencing each other about youth work, working with young people through youth information exchanges. This all began with youth unemployment. I wonder whether it would be possible to link the need for Europe to share thinking and research in the area about which we are now talking to problems that are common and are being faced individually at the moment by member states in Europe.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, one of the great and important developments of the past 20 years has been the development of a range of voluntary agencies concerned with the sick and the disabled. This investigation has taught us that there seems to be little contact between these agencies in different countries of the Community, and the Commission does not seem to be aware of the importance of involving them in its planning.
There is strong support for non-governmental organisations for greater exchange of information, experience and innovatory ideas between the statutory and voluntary organisations of the member states. However, there was not much evidence of action having been taken in this regard. There are limits to what charitable and voluntary organisations can do with their available resources. The committee noted that there was a low level of communication for which there had not been compensation by the Commission or the United Kingdom Government either in publicising experiments and initiatives which the Community has sponsored and developed or to widen the discussion of the issues raised by the action programme beyond the small group of people who were already directly involved.
One wonders whether a three-point public health programme of information exchange involving personal health, care of the sick and disabled, and the adaptation to work programmes is needed. This is a point to which I shall come a little later.
One of the most important proposals in the second programme is that there should be a proper management structure. The inadequacies of the liaison group on disabilities were very evident in the
652
first programme. With hindsight, much could have been done in the first programme by dealing through an effective steering group both in Community headquarters and nationally. The United Kingdom steering group failed miserably. The responsibility must rest with the Department of Health and Social Security and failure to evaluate properly must be attributed to the weaknesses of the steering group. Even within the United Kingdom Government there was no clear policy or agreement between the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security. However, the committee believes, I think rightly, that the second action programme along the lines proposed would offer possibilities for more effective central and national co-ordination.
What are the needs of the disabled? Much has been said about this already. Historically most countries have been concerned with the blind and the deaf and those with physical disabilities. They are only now beginning to face up to the complex and different problems of the mentally handicapped and mentally disabled and how provision can be made for their care in the community as well as their possible employment. The difficulties are that the kind of medical and social provision that has to be made for one disability may be totally different from another. If one adds to those difficulties the complex social and traditional attitudes of the different countries within the Community one begins to wonder whether any progress, organised or co-ordinated centrally, is possible.
There is an extraordinary degree of sensitivity, as your Lordships know, in most countries in the Community about the organisation of their social and domestic structure, which they sincerely believe is a matter for them and not for the Community. But somehow or other it must be made possible to introduce and apply important social and medical facilities for the disabled against this varying background. There can be no argument at this time and at this stage to legislate centrally and the maximum use should be made of other measures to facilitate and encourage change in different situations, as happened with the young unemployed.
I believe that international co-operation between members of the Community in relation to the new public health may be an important instrument. It could be run by a public health commission and a public health authority which had powers only to present results to constituent members and on occasion when it was felt appropriate to submit proposals to the council through the Commission. The use of such an authority might well produce proposals which countries felt they could introduce and dovetail into their own social and domestic structure. It seems to me that in these early days, and in the face of rapid change, legislation centrally is not the right way to proceed. One would wish to see the domestic programmes in a substantial number of countries of the Community tried and their worth proved before there was any question of legislation throughout the Community.
One of the most difficult examples of what not to do is not before us today. It is the use of videos. Legislation seems to have been undertaken by the

653
Commission in the light of mounting concern among the members of the public that something must be done to protect people from the adverse effects of videos. It is proposed to introduce this when the evidence to support such a course of action does not exist. The difficulty about this situation is that the standing and reputation of the legislation and legislators is cast into doubt.
Against this complex background it is not surprising that the committee welcomes the second action programme as a significant step forward, involving volunteers, non-government organisations, and experts, and the important communications which will result from the development of Handynet. This will improve the quality and exchange of information. It is an ambitious scheme which depends for its success on the data basis at national level. Any developments in future, here or abroad, should be compatible with Handynet.
I do not believe that the proposals for the disabled will succeed unless they are introduced against the broad background of the public health and their worth is proven before measures are taken to legislate.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and to the committee for the work that it has done under his guidance. The noble Lord told us that the report is of increasing importance as we approach 1992. Over the past 10 or 15 years there has developed a pressure group, a consumer body, of handicapped people, themselves articulate, who speak for themselves and their peers. Indeed, they are not underrepresented in this House.
The clear message of the report is that disabled people, their representatives, and organisations working with and for them, must have a major role in the development of the action programmes. Therefore the wide publicity about the second programme, which has been mentioned several times, is essential.
That brings me to the participation of the handicapped in the community. People with disabilities, as we well know, are often denied the opportunity to participate fully in the life of the community because of the physical, social and economic barriers that society has created. The handicapped are frustrated because of inaccessible buildings and transport. They are limited by low income and inadequate benefits and their difficulties are compounded by the extra costs of disability; segregation in education, cultural and recreational facilities that are not designed for them; denial of the right to form normal human relationships and, perhaps most important of all, the right to express their sexuality as human beings.
For people with a mental handicap these barriers are made worse by ignorance and prejudice, which go hand in hand with poverty and under-education. The action programme provides an opportunity to increase knowledge and understanding of the nature and needs of mentally handicapped people, their families and their carers.
654
The second action programme will concentrate on independent living. What does "independent living" mean for mentally handicapped people? MENCAP, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, was one of the organisations which gave evidence to the inquiry. indeed Lord Allen of Abbeydale, chairman of the Committee, is MENCAP's president. Mrs. Mary Holland, who has done so much to articulate the concerns of the handicapped, formerly at the Spastics Society and now at MENCAP, is in your Lordships' House today and she has briefed me and probably some others for this debate.
MENCAP pointed out that successive governments have promoted policies of care in the community and recent years have seen increased emphasis on closing long stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped and moving people into the community. However, it should be remembered that the vast majority of people with mental handicap have always lived in the community until their parents could no longer cope with the care. We all know that the major worry of the parents of a severely handicapped child is, "What will happen to our dear one when we can no longer care for him?" They are admitted, of course, to long stay hospitals or to hostels provided for them. It should also be recognised that simply living in the community does not ensure participation in the life of the community, much less enjoyment of it.
Mental handicap covers a wide range of ability or disability. Many people with mild mental handicap are apparently not significantly affected—it does not show; but many have considerable problems in managing their lives as my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff pointed out to the House last week. Others with moderate to severe mental handicap will need support and guidance throughout their lives. Independent living will, therefore, for many mean dependence upon physical, social and financial supports throughout life.
Let us consider the financial support. The main source of income for mentally handicapped people is non-contributory benefits which carry a highly devalued image. We had an example of that this afternoon. Why else should White Papers before your Lordships' House refer scathingly to the "dependency culture"? We know, do we not, that the wage someone is paid for the job he does is an index of his value in our society. In a predominantly market economy where pride is taken in the market economy and in the profits syndrome, it is money which will give access to a wide range of experiences and opportunities. How realistic is it for people with a mental handicap to expect to find paid jobs? The short answer is "Not as realistic as it should be". Nor, in times of high general unemployment. is there as much good will towards their doing so. Competition for jobs that bring the fit into competition with the handicapped does not do much favour for the handicapped.
But there are imaginative projects such as MENCAP's Pathway employment scheme. That scheme was set up by MENCAP in 1975 as a pilot project in South Wales in response to parents who were expressing concern about the lack of work

655
opportunities in the area as the industrial base declined. The scheme's innovative approach paid off and there are now 27 Pathway employment officers providing services in 31 cities, boroughs or counties. By December 1987, 1,187 people with mental handicap had been placed in open employment with a success rate of 80 per cent. In addition, 1,051 people had been placed on work experience programmes which are used as stepping stones into work, into a job.
Employment officers in the Pathway schemes are responsible in the first place for seeking out work opportunities. Then they persuade employers to hire people with mental handicap. Their third duty is matching people into their jobs and, fourthly, they support individuals in the work place. Starting work for the first time is an intimidating experience for everyone, even for the very fit and very lively. The Pathway scheme has developed a way of helping with this transition into work. A foster worker is appointed to help the new employee with on-the-job training and with all aspects of the work routine. I would suggest that the Pathway scheme is an excellent example of good practice—one which could be adopted by countries throughout the EC.
But we must remember that for the majority of mentally handicapped people non-contributory benefits will be their only income. The report has highlighted a number of inadequacies of our benefit system. A significant, and I believe demeaning fact, is that a partial pension is payable for partial incapacity to work in all EC member countries except Ireland and the United Kingdom. This is not a political point; it is a personal point. Perhaps the Minister will explain how that can be justified? He knows that income and independence are inextricably linked. It is hoped the second action programme will produce recommendations that will lead to a benefit system that will increase opportunities for part-time employment without financial penalty through loss of benefit.
What of social supports? Sharing leisure time is an excellent way of promoting integration. Again MENCAP's National Federation of Gateway Clubs provides a good model for our European neighbours. Founded in 1966 Gateway now has over 700 clubs throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These clubs give some 40,000 people a chance to take part in a range of leisure activities which encourage movement towards independence, self-awareness and self-esteem through participation, the exercise of choice and decision-making. The success of this national voluntary youth and community organisation is largely dependent on the skills and interests that 20,000 volunteers contribute. Already Gateway has established links with colleagues in France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Holland and Belgium.
The basis of Gateway's success is the partnership between people with a mental handicap and volunteer helpers—partners in pursuit of shared leisure, recreation and social activities. All people who have volunteered to give such help have almost always found the quality of their own lives very much enriched.
656
Finally, do we need further legislation to promote independent living and integration for people with disabilities? My answer is "Yes". It is deplorable that today in the United Kingdom employers and others can discriminate on the grounds of disability. Anti-discrimination legislation in my opinion is long overdue.
Equally important is the implementation of the legislation we already have: specifically the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That Act is fundamental to a better quality of life for people with disabilities. There can be no good reason for the delay in bringing it fully into force.
As ever, it is a privilege to be associated with the noble and caring Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in this debate, as it is to be among those others who have contributed to it. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who cares too as I well know, will emphasise to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that this Motion has united many people in this House regardless of their chosen politics.
5.10 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the debate on the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities has been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, chairman of the committee. It heard interesting and informative evidence from various groups concerned with disablement and independent living, or living in the community. It appears that there is no criteria for defining handicap which can be accepted throughout the Community. Precise estimates of the number of disabled people are difficult to establish because no up-to-date statistics are available for all member states.
The first action programme was intended to coordinate the activities in which member states were already involved and to encourage their efforts in promoting the social and economic integration of disabled people. The second action programme was adopted by the EC Council of Ministers on 18th April 1988. Organisations for disabled people are concerned that the mistakes which were made in the first action programme should not be repeated in the second.
Disabled people wish to participate actively in European society and therefore wish to be equally represented in all the talks which concern them. It was noticed that when disabled people were directly involved there was marked progress. That applies particularly to the Lambeth Accord project. The network of local projects established by the Commission under the first action programme was set up in each member state. Each had at least one such project but the United Kingdom had two; the Lambeth Accord project, which I have already mentioned, and the West Berkshire Interface. Unfortunately the projects had little publicity. According to the report, the United Kingdom steering group did not consider that publishing the action programme in the United Kingdom was part of its role. That was a pity because it is one way in

657
which the public at large might reach a more sympathetic understanding of the needs of the disabled.
It appears clear from the report that both the Lambeth Accord and the West Berkshire Interface projects have done well. The West Berkshire project has a high proportion of people passing through its training programmes and gaining open employment as a result. Those responsible in both projects believe that they have advanced the independence of disabled people.
As regards independent living, policy guidance must be broad in order to be flexible. In accordance with paragraphs 112 to 119 of the World Programme of Action, it is recommended that, in the areas of benefits and service provision, the demands of disabled people regarding their needs should be given a high priority. The Greenwich Association of Disabled People—GAD—is an organisation of disabled people working for the equal participation of disabled people within the community. Greenwich is an area where consultation has occurred between statutory authorities and consumer groups and that has led to a redirection of services. It was found that community care in the borough had improved and expanded to include short-term domiciliary care, a care attendance scheme and independent living schemes using community service volunteers. It has meant that over 38 severely disabled people are being kept in the community. Two are in full-time employment, one is at university and three work as volunteers in a local organisation. Surely it is to be congratulated on the success story.
The use of community service volunteers should be only an option. Problems can arise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has already mentioned. The committee noted the practice in the EC whereby any volunteer successfully completing a period of approved volunteer service automatically attracts credits which can be taken into account should the young volunteer wish to join a caring profession. That could be useful in the United Kingdom as a means of easing the shortage of volunteers.
A problem with the community service volunteers is that, in general, they stay in one place for only six months and therefore the disabled person is always in a state of reorganising his or her life. However, many are truly grateful to the CSVs who do a wonderful job.
While recognising the wide field which the second community action programme for disabled people seeks to cover, the RNIB and its sister organisation in Europe (the European Blind Union) welcome the positive impact which the action programmes have had. Under the auspices of the first action programme the European Blind Union has organised conferences on such subjects as low vision, barriers to access, mobility, social legislation, rehabilitation and the needs of deaf blind people. Therefore the RNIB was pleased to learn that the second action programme had been agreed.
The results of the action programmes must be measured not only by individual projects but also by their capacity for increasing awareness and stimulating development in the field of economic,
658
social and cultural integration generally. Most organisations find that the increased European exchange of experience and co-operation has been most helpful.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have a central mechanism for co-ordinating and disseminating information on the various projects. If not, should there not be such a mechanism? Can the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to those programmes?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this important and timely debate. I also wish to express my appreciation of the work of the Select Committee which produced a constructive and challenging report. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has indicated, the report and this debate have generated considerable interest in Northern Ireland among organisations and those directly concerned with the needs of the disabled. In that connection I have noted in particular the cogent opinion of the Select Committee contained in paragraph 71, of the report. It clearly underscores matters relayed to me by the Northern Ireland Council on Disability (NICD). It encountered serious difficulties arising from the general lack of awareness and the ineffective communications concerning the EC's action for disabled people, especially in respect of projects directed towards the promotion of integration.
Paragraph 71 has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and I quote from it because the text should be placed on the Official Report. It contains the nub of the issue; the dichotomy between words and action. It states:
"The Committee note that this low level of communication has not been compensated by any real efforts by the Commission or by the United Kingdom Government either to publicise the experiments and initiatives which the Community has sponsored and developed or to widen the discussion of the issues raised by the Action Programme beyond the small group of people who were already directly involved. If an intention of the First Action Programme was to raise the general level of awareness, then in this regard in the United Kingdom it must be said to have failed".
I quote also from paragraph 72. It states:
"The Committee believe that there is scope for strengthening and extending the exchange of information relevant to the needs of people with disabilities throughout the Community. The development of the Second Action Programme could be seen as a touchstone of the way the European Community tackles social problems".
I have referred to the Northern Ireland Council on Disability. That organisation is the central coordinating and representative body in the Province for the disabled. A quotation taken from one of its publications will indicate that the organisation is making strong efforts to promote integration.
"The Northern Ireland Council on Disability is a registered charity providing advice, information and support for disabled people, carers, professionals working in the field of disability and disability groups. The Council represents all aspects of disability—physical, mental, sensory and hidden and comprises of over 120 member groups".
The publication lists the number of services which the organisation provides, including transport and professional advice to builders on matters of access. It continues:

659
"The Council provides information on benefits, education, employment, mobility, fund raising, recreation, access and housing and produces a wide range of booklets … It acts as a focal point for disability issues, for an estimated 150,000 disabled people in Northern Ireland".
I understand that those 150,000 disabled people in Northern Ireland represent about 10 per cent. of the total population, which is about the average of the number of disabled people throughout the whole of the EC. Therefore, we have a problem concerning not merely isolated issues but 10 per cent. of the population who wish and deserve to have the quality of their lives improved.
One of the main functions of the NICD is to promote in every way possible the integration of disabled people. In June this year when the council became aware of a second community action programme for disabled people, it inquired about details of a programme from a number of sources, including United Kingdom departmental levels, in Brussels at EC level and in the Northern Ireland area. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has already mentioned that he received correspondence from Northern Ireland about the difficulties which the NICD was having in that respect.
I have received a number of letters about the manner in which the council sought to glean information about how it could co-operate and participate in a particular programme. I wish to quote from part of a letter which has been sent to me. It says:
"I have contacted the Training Commission and DHSS in London, who confirmed that no group in Northern Ireland had been asked for nominations, and that the closing dates were 1st September and 16th September 1988.
My Council finds the above totally unacceptable.
We would have thought that if Northern Ireland has been designated a priority region within the EEC, then there ought to be an effective mechanism within the UK to ensure that our interests are adequately represented. We feel it is essential that Northern Ireland is part of the EC network and can contribute to, and benefit from, the Second Action Programme.
We have suggested to the Secretary of State, Mr. Tom King, that a Working Group be established in Northern Ireland to co-ordinate the views of the various Government departments with an interest in the Second Action Programme i.e. Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Economic Development, Department of Education for Northern Ireland and Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, which should then makes its views known to the two UK representatives. The group would have responsibility for collating and disseminating information in respect to the programme. We feel also that the voluntary sector should be represented on such a group".
I regret that I may appear to be taking a narrow, provincial attitude. I believe it underscores and presents to the House what the committee found as evidence. There has been a sad lack of communication throughout the whole exercise. Perhaps I may say that that has created serious and critical concern in Northern Ireland. There is concern and anger manifest there about the apparent neglect by the Government to give practical recognition to the Northern Ireland constitutional position within the United Kingdom in regard to this programme. That has been put to me in no uncertain terms.
Whatever are the reasons, it is obvious that the omission actively to associate Northern Ireland with the European Community's programmes for the disabled is the denial of opportunities and rights to
660
United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. Reference has been made to the letter sent by the council to Mr. Tom King, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I understand that he would not have had time to reply to that before this debate and I am sure that the council will receive a reply in due course.
I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Minister who is to respond to this debate, but perhaps I may ask him whether he will use his good offices to draw these points to the attention of his Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues in the hope of having the matters clarified and remedied to some degree.
I repeat that it is not my intention to take a narrow, provincial attitude on this report. Indeed, I support and commend the 17 main conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. I believe that if genuine efforts are made by the United Kingdom Government along the lines contained in the report, such efforts would greatly influence the European Community's action programme for the integration of disabled people. Such concerted action at EC levels could greatly improve the quality of life for millions of disabled people and give them much hope and happiness.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as a so-called disabled person, I should like to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities for giving us the opportunity today to discuss the report on integration of disabled people.
When reading the report I came to the conclusion that the committee could not have had an easy task in coming to some of its conclusions and recommendations. When discussing so many disabilities all of which have wide variations, it is understandable that there are difficulties. The committee found one problem as regards the first project—namely, that there were no accepted criteria for defining handicap throughout the Community. Article 2 of the amended proposal for a second action programme defines disabled people as:
"all those with heavy disabilities resulting from physical, mental or psychological impairments".
I was interested to see that the Commission's proposal for a first action programme was the response of its Bureau for Action in Favour of Disabled People to the International Year of Disabled People 1981. So there came about a network of projects throughout the member states to pioneer ways of promoting the economic and social integration of disabled people. That was delayed until 1983. So often one has to contend with frustrations and delays when there is any sort of action involving handicapped people. However, I am sure that many people worked exceedingly hard to get these projects off the ground. The biggest problem must have been getting member states to agree when there were such variations involving so many different handicaps.
Paragraph 14 of the report states:
"One area of activity which the Action Programme sought to co-ordinate was the European network of rehabilitation centres set up by

661
Council Resolution of 9th July 1974. These centres promote the exchange of ideas and information and the disseminaton of good practice in rehabilitation techniques".
As regards good practice in rehabilitation techniques, from what I have seen in certain member states, some of them have a long way to go and much must be done to improve the present situation for some disabled people and their families suffer greatly.
To take the speciality of spinal injuries as an example, these are all too common in developed countries with industries and large volumes of traffic but some member states have no facilities for treatment and rehabilitation. In 1960 Italy had a very good spinal centre for workers. It no longer has. The special unit closed when its director retired. Now Italy sends some patients to France for treatment, a long way from their families. A lucky few spinal patients from Greece are sent to other countries such as Britain, but have to pay vast amounts, as these arrangements are very expensive.
Earlier this year the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who is a Euro MP, contacted me as she had met in Spain the mother of a tetraplegic—it was a neck injury—who had a serous complication. I was able to put the family in contact with the correct place of treatment in England, and because they could afford to pay, we were able to save one life.
There is an immense amount to do. One aim should be to encourage governments to do much more for their disabled people so that they will have adequate places of treatment. That should come first, because people cannot be integrated into the community unless they have first been treated and rehabilitated.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, briefly mentioned Handynet, but I should like to hear more about it. The report says it was expanded to include the dissemination of a wide range of information to facilitate the greater choice and independence of disabled people. I had not heard about Handynet before reading this report. Information is vital and should be made available for everyone who needs it, not just professionals. I hope the Minister can tell us who runs Handynet and from where it operates. I hear that Northern Ireland has just launched a directory on disability needs. Provided they are kept up to date directories are most useful.
My noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) asked me to apologise on her behalf, as she was a member of the committee whose report we are debating but is unable to be here. She had a hospital appointment today. Disabled people who are integrated into society must keep themselves fit, and my noble friend had to keep her appointment. Like myself, my noble friend knows that most disabled people wish above all else to be able to live independent lives. This independence depends on how much help they are able to get should their disability require it. The committee had some difficulty in understanding that point. Disabled people who are able to do so, with or without help, would like at least the choice of being able to control their own lives.
There has been a great move to try to get all handicapped people who can be integrated into the community out of institutions. That must be done
662
with proper facilities such as housIng, access to necessary places, adequate care, transport, education, employment and recreation facilities. If the community is to take integration seriously it cannot be complacent. The community must itself involve disabled people, and I am pleased that many noble Lords have said that.
Paragraph 97 of the report states that disabled people cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. I agree that there is a wide variety of types and degrees of handicap, but they all need some degree of help and, with that, they can be homogeneous. All the needs should be tackled but of course that cannot be done without resources. Having the correct facilities is an insurance policy because nobody can say when or where disability will strike.
Nor does anybody really know what will develop in 1992. I hope that there have been some improvements since I visited the Commission's head office at Berlaymont in Brussels some years ago. There was no lavatory which was accessible to a wheelchair. The doors were all too narrow and the basin was the only solution.
It is important to encourage European Members of Parliament to take an interest in matters relating to disability. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, told me that she was able to get the disabled persons' car park badge recognised on a national basis throughout the Community. She also told me that Mr. Daunt, who runs the bureau for disability, had helped a great deal with the Reading project. There is now a European parliamentary disability group which meets every month in Strasbourg. Already structural alterations have been made to improve facilities. I hope that there will soon be some disabled Members of the European Parliament. There should certainly be building regulations and codes of practice to assist with the integration of all disabled people who wish to be active members of the community throughout all Community member states.
I conclude by saying that it is unwise to put restrictions on the potential of individuals. Who knows what can be achieved with developing technical aids and personal drive? One young pilot who broke his neck diving during a rest period from carrying out mercy flights during the Vietnam war was told that because of his impaired hands he would never be able to drive a car. Some time after leaving the rehabilitation centre he took pleasure in driving back and showing the doctor concerned what he could do. We should never make judgments for people. They should be assisted to find their own parameters and potentials.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too commence by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and his committee for this report. I am particularly interested in the concept of Handynet. I understand that it is not likely to start for some nine months or a year. If for any reason it does not start in the EC I hope that my noble friend will ensure that a similar arrangement will be set up in this country from which we could expand later into Europe.

663
It is absolutely essential for disabled people and for organisations which look after them to have access to all the information that they need. Although able-bodied people may look different and we can tell them apart, as a group they are one and the same. They might as well all be turned out of the same mould. Physically disabled people, however, are all individually different. They have different handicaps. The handicap may appear to be the same but, for example, the length of reach will be different, or the amount that the person can turn will be different.
The handicapped have very much greater individual requirements than do able-bodied people. If an able-bodied person goes into a room to do a task and he cannot reach that which he requires he can fetch a stool, steps or a chair. He can improvise and do the job. A disabled person is stuck and must ask for help. That is the handicap.
Can the Minister tell me what is likely to happen at the end of the initial four-year period. It strikes me that it will be a most terrible shame if this programme is allowed to lapse because it is absolutely essential. We have an ageing population in this country and I assume that it is the same in Europe, but I do not know. With an ageing population we have a greater degree of disability throughout the population as a whole. There is a greater chance of people being injured and becoming disabled and of more people becoming disabled purely through age. The need is growing.
Where will the funds for Handynet come from? How much will they be and will they be enough? Will Handynet be adequately staffed? If it does not have enough funds, the right quality of staff and enough of them, it will go off at half cock. It will not be properly used and therefore it will not develop as it should. In addition, will my noble friend ensure that all voluntary and statutory organisations in this country are given proper information about Handynet so that they can make use of it from the very beginning. It is no use having a tool that is locked away and no one knows where it is. That is an awful waste of time and money.
There is no real definition of living independently and I hope that no one will try to produce one. The vast majority of people are married with a family. If one is married with a family or even without one, one cannot be independent because one has dependants or one depends upon someone else. If we are talking about living independently in terms of a disabled person, it must mean that within his own ability the individual disabled person has control and choice over his own lifestyle. There should not be a blueprint for independent living, but there should be a range of choices to suit individual needs. In order to help them with that choice it is necessary to ensure that there is a proper assessment of their physical needs; their care needs and also their financial needs.
Perhaps I may give three examples of three groups of young people who have recently left one of John Grooms' establishments where they have spent two years training to be independent. They consider that they are independent. They are independent because they consider that they are independent. The first is a
664
young man and though he does not always need to use a wheelchair, he has to use one whenever he is out of his own flat. He can do everything for himself now that he is in a flat that is properly designed for him. He does not need any help. The vast majority of us would say that as we see it he is independent.
The next example is of a young girl who is severely crippled with arthritis. She lives independently. She needs help twice a day; in the morning when she gets up to dress and in the evening when she undresses to go to bed. That is the only help that she needs, but she is independent because she is able to arrange for the help that she needs. The other example is that of a young married couple who are both spastics. The husband has no control over any of his limbs above the waist. The wife is very much more disabled. Between the two of them they need somewhere in the region of eight-and-a-half hours' help a day. They are living independently in their own council house specially adapted to suit their needs. We might not think that they are independent because they need so much help during the day, but they are independent. They are no longer living in a home. Before they were living in a home they were both living in separate hospitals and they were unable to get married until they were able to move into a home. They are independent in comparison with what life was like before.
When thinking of independence it is important that individuals are able to buy their own care. When assessing how to help them to become independent we must assess how much care they need and help them to get the right financial assistance. We must not forget that it is cheaper to live independently out of a home in one's own dwelling than it is to live in a home. Again, it is cheaper still than living in a hospital. A good deal has been said about volunteers and I do not decry them in the least. But for a disabled person living independently, part of that independence is buying one's own care package and paying oneself those who come to help, negotiating with them the cost and when they are to come.
As a final point—and this has been mentioned already, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Parry—we in this country seem to decide whether someone is able-bodied and able to work full-time or disabled and therefore not fit to work at all. In my view we have to adapt the allowances that we make so that people who are able to do some work can do so within their capabilities and still, at the same time, have the allowances that permit them to be financially independent.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other speakers in this debate I begin by congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his committee for a most interesting and valuable report and for providing the opportunity for this debate today. The report deals with the social and economic integration of people with disabilities, and those are the two aspects that I wish to discuss.
Before one can look at the question of the integration of disabled people in the European

665
Community, I believe that we should take a long and hard look at home to see how we are faring in this respect. I shall deal first with the social integration of people with disabilities. It is a matter of attitude. So much of the attitude of our society towards the disabled is to treat them either as the brave hero or the helpless victim. We tend to define people by their disability when the disability itself is completely irrelevant. We refer to the blind author or the wheelchair-bound broadcaster when the ability to write or to broadcast is completely irrelevant to the disability.
I believe that there is a subtle change in the attitude towards disability. We seem to be moving towards a situation where somehow the disabled have to prove their worthiness in order to be helped. I believe that there is a danger of a return to Victorian attitudes where there is reliance upon philanthropy or charity to undertake what is and what should always be the responsibility of the whole community. We may contrast this with the European experience and particularly that of Scandinavia, where there are moves towards a comprehensive allowance for disability.
Perhaps I may refer again to the matter of attitudes and the question of children in need or the children of courage syndrome. This may be an unpopular view but it needs stating. I am referring to the telethons that are used to raise money for the disabled and others. The report estimates that there are some 30 million people in the EC who are disabled. A recent OPCS survey in the United Kingdom stated that there are 6 million people with disabilities.
We know all the problems over definition. In the United Kingdom three-quarters of the disabled are pensioners, but the telethons focus almost exclusively on children. There is a total mismatch between the age of disabled people who appear on television and the age of most people with disabilities in the general population. There is a concentration on raising money which ignores or refuses to acknowledge the social needs which have created the problem in the first place. The programmes somehow imply that the disabled poor not only have to be worthy of help but have to be attractive in terms of television and emotion.
I shall quote from the experience of somebody who appeared on one of these programmes. He said:
"In order to get their money, they have to humiliate me … to me, a wheelchair is a solution, not a sentence. Because I use a wheelchair, I am able to do so many things I otherwise could not. I am not 'confined to a wheelchair'. I don't 'face a life without meaning', and I'm not a 'poor, unfortunate cripple who needs your help' ".
In the public sector I can give three examples of where social integration is made more difficult. There is a phrase in the parliamentary draftsman's handbook. Organisations mentioned in various Acts of Parliament set out grounds on which the relevant Minister can debar people from membership. The phrase singles out those who are "incapacitated by physical or mental illness". This is absent-mindedly offensive. We managed to remove this phraseology from the Education Reform Bill and the Housing Bill.
We all know that the Government have spent an enormous amount of money on refurbishing
666
Richmond Terrace for the former Department of Health and Social Security. I am sure that its architecture would meet with the full approval of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I wonder whether His Royal Highness would be so impressed if he knew that the two departments having most to do with disability were given a headquarters which I am told is internally inaccessible to wheelchairs. I am informed that that is the case. There are now plans to put this right.
The Department of Employment recently issued a leaflet on employment opportunities. The photograph on the front showed people who were available for the schemes—the young and coloured people; and there was somebody in a wheelchair. The person in the wheelchair was able-bodied. He was asked to sit in the wheelchair in order to create the photograph. These are examples of Elle attitude of society towards the disabled.
Paragraph 89 of the report mentions with approval a number of initiatives taken by member countries of the EC. In my view our target should be a comprehensive disability allowance to compensate for the extra costs of disability, and a disability pension to bring the income of the disabled person up to a decent standard. Several countries of the EC and some outside it are well ahead of us in this respect. I am extremely pleased that the Labour Party Conference in 1987 adopted such an arrangement as an objective of policy.
The prospects of economic integration in this country are bedevilled by the anomalies which are found in our treatment of disabled people. I shall give as an example the circumstances of four people. They are all aged around 35. They are unmarried but not living alone and they are all double amputees. The first has never worked because he has had the disability from early childhood. The second had worked but lost his legs through an accident unrelated to his work. The third lost his legs through a work accident. The fourth lost his legs in the Falklands.
The first has an income of £46 per week; the second has an income of £58 per week; the third has an income of £151 per week; and the Fourth has an income of £137 per week. I have rounded up the figures to the nearest pound. All of them have the same condition. All face the same problems and all have the same costs. There is a difference between the highest and the lowest income of £105 a week.
I have another example of four people. They are aged 35, are unmarried, are not living alone and are tetraplegic. They receive mobility allowance and attendance allowance. The first receives an income of £102 per week; the second receives £106 per week; the third receives £248 per week; and the fourth receives £252 per week. All have the same condition. All have the same problems and face the same costs. There is a difference between the highest and the lowest income of £150 per week. This is not a political point. These anomalies have existed under all governments. I think we would all agree that it is extremely hard to think in terms of the economic integration of disabled people while such problems exist.

667
I should like to look outside the EC to see the range of policies for dealing with disability. Perhaps the two approaches most dramatically different are to be found in America and Sweden. Sweden has adopted a social welfare approach. It identifies the needs of particular groups of disabled people and then tries to compensate them for their degree of disability. They are moving towards the disability allowance and the disability pension.
In the United States the approach is pure Thatcherism. However, it is logical and it is followed through to the final degree. Legislation provides for equal opportunity under the law and therefore those rights are established in the constitution. All new buildings and any old buildings being modified must not provide an architectural barrier. If it prevents anyone from entering, the structure is closed to the public and has to be reopened after adjustments have been made. Employers must not discriminate on grounds of disability or colour. What is more, they have to be seen to take affirmative action and go out of their way to give jobs to disabled people. Disabled Americans are confident under the law. According to the World Institute of Disability, incomes in work for disabled people are no different from those of able-bodied people.
In Europe, the Germans operate a quota scheme in employment of 6 per cent. Failure to meet it results in an automatic levy which goes into a fund to pay for the training of disabled people to get the job which the employer says they cannot do. France and Sweden have Ministers for disabled people who themselves are disabled. America, Canada, South Australia and Scandinavia all have some form of anti-discrimination legislation.
In debates in the past on the disabled I have referred to the phrase "the disabled divide", which is the gap between the income, the expectations and the opportunities of the disabled and the rest of the population. The committee's report has gone some way towards helping to close that divide.
5.58 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, one of the problems of being one of the last speakers in the debate is that many noble Lords will already have said what I plan to say. However, I make no apologies for repeating gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for enabling us to debate this report today. It encompasses matters to which I attach a great deal of importance. The report highlights two major problems, both of which have seriously affected the efficacy of the Government's Care in the Community policy and, it would appear, the policies of other countries within the European Community. One is communication, the other is funding.
On the positive side, there is a good exchange of ideas and practices between the many voluntary organisations which provide care for the disabled. Unfortunately, government departments seem to be incapable of hearing, though they make some pretence of listening to, the advice of the disabled or those ideally suited to represent them. The difficulties
668
the committee encountered when trying to obtain evidence in a European context are described in paragraph 22. How can a uniform policy for the integration of disabled people be formulated when there is no clear definition of disability? As other speakers have already asked, what is disablement? What is independence? Until these are clarified there can be no concerted efforts to give disabled people a sense of belonging to the community.
Obviously the degree of disability will affect the extent to which an individual can become independent. Some people can be helped to live independently provided they receive assistance with mobility. Others will only be able to live in the community with a high degree of care, such as that provided by community service volunteers. Some may be able to earn their own living; others may only be able to contribute a part of the money required for their needs; and yet others may never be capable of working for financial reward. The fact that disabled people cannot be categorised conveniently should not inhibit those responsible for formulating policies from considering their individual needs. Therefore those who provide the services for the disabled must listen to the disabled, whatever the extent of their disability, to ascertain their needs.
The Coopers and Lybrand study which is mentioned in paragraph 30 pointed to the inadequate dissemination of information by Government to the disabled, their carers and service providers. Over and over again we see, hear and read of the tremendous problems encountered by the disabled and their carers, problems which could be overcome if they were told of services, aids and funds which could lighten their burdens. Can the Minister say what progress is being made by the Department of Social Security to improve communication?
The recruitment of volunteers, both as carers and advocates, is likely to become more difficult as unemployment falls, as well as for the reason given in paragraph 64. I suspect that an inhibiting factor might also be a fear of the unknown. Community service volunteers tend to be thrown in at the deep end. The disabled person for whom they are to care is expected to train them. The disabled obviously know what they need; but they are not trainers.
I am chairman of a steering committee for a local collaborative project with the Evesham College of Further Education in conjunction with a training commission (originally MSC) to develop modular courses for carers to be approved by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications—I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is not present to hear this. The collaborative partners have found it much more difficult to define the qualities and skills necessary for a good carer than they had anticipated. They have gone out and asked existing carers and those being cared for in nursing and residential homes, and in their own homes, what they expect.
The exercise has been enlightening to the extent that the priorities of the able-bodied are not necessarily those of the disabled. Initially the course will be for mature students, but I am hoping that if it proves successful it can be extended to younger volunteers. Will the Minister therefore give some

669
thought to asking those in his department who are responsible for community care to converse with the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science to explore other ways of encouraging voluntary service in this field?
The County of Hereford and Worcester was the first in the Midlands to develop an advocacy service. Priming funds from the DHSS were allocated for three years and the scheme is expected to be self-supporting by July 1989. At present there arc more than 20 partnerships between advocates and those who suffer from mental handicap. Advocates are carefully selected and trained but, as with all volunteers, they are difficult to come by. However, they provide a most valuable service and it seems a pity that central government appear to be unwilling to promote this and other schemes more widely and to provide publicity so that volunteers will come forward.
One of the points made by those witnesses representing the Lambeth Accord was that a number of candidates presenting for training for employment were simply not ready. They needed to be properly settled in the community before venturing into the employment field. There should be a co-ordinated government policy to ensure that patients newly discharged from long-stay hospitals are suitably housed and their social and financial needs adequately provided for.
In the past I have accused the Government of paying lip-service to the concept of care in the community. Some very successful projects have been developed but it must be conceded that their success is due rather more to the energy and enthusiasm of voluntary organisations and enlightened local authorities than to the thrust of central government. In far too many instances fiscal measures and the lack of co-ordination between departments responsible for discharge and subsequent care of patients from long-stay hospitals thwart the development of proper integration of the disabled into the community.
The first action programme was flawed because too much emphasis was placed upon the vocational aspects of integration. Insufficient attention was paid to the needs of the disabled; the limits to the resources of charitable and voluntary organisations were not recognised; and there was a failure of communication between, and within, member states and a dearth of funding.
For the second action programme to succeed in the United Kingdom, and its fellows in the Community, the Government must observe the recommendations of the noble Lords who compiled this comprehensive report. It would be a tragedy if it were left to gather dust on the bureaucratic shelves beside so many others.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like first, as other noble Lords have done, to express my warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, not only for chairing the committee but also for presenting the report and for opening an extremely important and valuable debate this afternoon. I should also like to thank those noble Lords who served on the
670
committee, some of whom gave of their experience during the course of today's debate.
I certainly warmly commend the report and its conclusions. Indeed, I think it was the quality of the report which heightened the value of today's debate. I must say that I agree with so much that has been said. However, there is one matter upon which I think I ought to defend myself. My noble friend Lord Carter made some criticisms about the telethon. I only do that as chairman of the Anglia Telethon. We sought to be as sensitive as we could in the presentation of the problems of disabled people and in allocating funds, though I fully recognise the problems which he presented.
Reading the report suggests to me that those involved in this important study experienced a good deal of frustration as they went through the task of taking down the formal written evidence and also the oral evidence. Perhaps I may give just one or two examples from the Minutes of the meetings. On 9th December 1987 they were exploring the policies with the officers of the DHSS. They were exploring the liaison between various projects within the UK and between countries in Europe. The official said—I am paraphrasing—that the DHSS had not been invited to visit any of the district projects in the United Kingdom, and that liaison in terms of exchanging information about projects in different parts of the community had been negligible. He said there seemed to be little consumer participation in the assessment of the various projects. I think that all those matters will be of as much concern to the Minister as they were to members of the select committee.
When the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked why Her Majesty's Government did not emulate other countries in terms of linking disabled pensions to employment capacities, one official said that it was not his responsibility— which is fair enough—while another, whose responsibility it was, said that he could not answer the question. I hope that this is a problem to which the Minister and his colleagues will give serious attention. Indeed, it has been touched upon by several noble Lords in the course of today's debate.
The Government's evidence to the committee seemed to me to lack any sense of urgency and any degree of priority. Indeed, I thought it reeked of indecision. Some of the ground covered in the committee's discussion was the same as that covered by Sir Roy Griffiths in his own study of community care—to which the Government have so far refused to respond. I shall not ask them again today to do so, because I have already done so many times in your Lordships' House.
It is to me no wonder that the committee's conclusions—which in my view are very sound—reflect a good deal of disappointment at the situation with which it was dealing. For example, the social and economic integration of disabled people is hampered by a lack of precision in formulating the first and the second action programmes. Further, the management studies of the first action programme were defective, it said, and weakened by inadequate government supervision. The committee said that the UK had missed some of the potential benefits of the

671
first action programme, and that there was no effective definition, as noble Lords have mentioned, of either the term "disabled people" or the objective of independent living. However, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, went a long way towards providing a very good definition in his speech to us this evening.
The committee referred to there being no adequate system of exchanging information and ideas. I make no criticism of the committee's report. My concern is that there seems to be little leadership from the Government, despite the active involvement of non-governmental organisations. It was their evidence which provided much of the vital information and ideas which enlightened the committee's report. I welcome the approval of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, of the work of voluntary organisations in that field. It is of great importance that so many of your Lordships who took part in the debate are involved with organisations of and for disabled people.
In the wake of the publication of the Select Committee's report comes a companion volume from Kensington Palace with the imprint of His Royal Highness Prince Charles, who was referrred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in his opening speech. I should like to touch on some of the conclusions because they are relevant to those reached by the committee's report. Incidentally, Prince Charles is making a name for himself by speaking out with clarity and courage on matters of public concern. More power to his elbow! He stirs up an interest with the freshness of his own approach which most of us here welcome. His report on housing and support services for people with severe physical disabilities is an outspoken and searing commentary on community responsibility, or lack of responsibility, for the integration of severely disabled people.
The living options project was launched by the Prince of Wales' advisory group on disability with a brief to document good practice in the way the housing and care support services are provided for people with severe disabilities. The reality of housing and care support options revealed by the project's investigations is alarming. Direct evidence from service users throughout England and Wales shows that few people obtain the flexible and dependable services essential for personal autonomy. I like the phrase "personal autonomy" and I shall return to it.
The amount and kind of help a disabled person receives are determined less by need than by chance. That is how the report is introduced. It is called a "Living options lottery". It says that disabled people are rarely involved in planning or managing the services they use, and that most live restricted, isolated lives at home dependent on family or friends, or remain in institutions. Inappropriate residential facilities continue to be built. In many authorities the needs of that client group are not yet even on the agenda.
I should like to give one or two examples of what the report says as a result of the study:
"quality housing and care support services for severely disabled people were few and far between … the housing and support requirements of people with severe physical disabilities remain unacknowledged by those with the power and resources to bring
672
about change. Services for 'younger disabled' adults with severe disabilities were felt to be particularly neglected. Expanding and improving services for this group will have a positive impact for people of all age groups and all levels of physical disability. Despite the emphasis on community care for the past decade, and considerable documentation of service needs, there has been little resulting benefit for younger people with severe physical disabilities. Few authorities contacted through the living options project claim to know either the numbers or needs of the severely disabled adults for whom they are responsible. For some disabled people, the level of care support has decreased during the past 10 years, as a result of funding cuts and diversion of funds to other priority areas (e.g. children at risk). For others, the need for even small amounts of additional support cannot be met".
I give just two other quotes. The report states:
"More than three-quarters of a million physically disabled people in Britain are inadequately housed. With little suitable and financially accessible private sector housing, most disabled people look to the public sector for help, but there is a shortage of at least 150,000 purpose-built or adapted rented public sector dwellings. Some housing authorities are adopting policies of building all new housing to mobility standard plus a proportion to wheelchair standard. The Housing Corporation regulations require that new housing association dwellings are built to mobility standard where possible. Lack of aids, adaptations, and equipment makes even a well designed home a prison. Many disabled people have little idea of what is now available that might help them live more independently".
One could continue. This is a document which your Lordships with a special interest in disability should study because it is perceptive and its conclusions are similar to those reached by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. It points the way forward.
I want to pick on the evidence given to the Select Committee by one of the voluntary organisations (MIND). I do so unashamedly as its chairman, because it made the point which has been made by a number of noble Lords. I quote from the report:
"Disabled people should be involved in the planning, development and management of care … The second and third action programmes will only be successful if they can demonstrate at a local level how each of the components of independent living can fit together, and how that integration promotes true independence for the individual. True independence is more than simply a home of one's own, important as that is. Independence means the ability and the income to make choices, and have control over one's own life".
That is the message that I want to emphasise from the evidence given in your Lordships' report and from so many of the speeches made by noble Lords today, especially by my noble friend Lord Parry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Disabled people have had enough of people doing things for them. They want to be enabled to take control of their own lives. They need to be revalued and empowered to become real people, making decisions for themselves. It is time that that message got through to the European Community, to governments, including our own, and to the community at large. That is the message of the report. I warmly commend it.
6.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his committee for the hard work that they have put into investigating the second action programme for the integration of disabled people. I have to tell the House—and on this occasion it does not mean that your Lordships will not like what is coming—that

673
these are no idle words and that the Government welcome the report—even the hard hitting comments on the carrying out of the first action programme to be found in paras. 74–78, upon which many noble Lords, and most recently the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have commented. I take it on the chin because your Lordships' committee is absolutely right. I do not believe that it is profitable to spend too much time on the latter point beyond saying that we and the Commission are determined to learn from our mistakes. One of those was that there was no complete co-ordinated oversight of the programme, which dealt only with two district projects whose aim was to promote pioneering ways of ensuring the economic and social integration of disabled people.
The programme, as we all know, had as a laudable aim the co-ordination of a community-wide network of district projects to promote the social and economic integration of disabled people. In addition, it had a separate community-wide network of rehabilitation centres to promote the exchange of ideas and information and to disseminate good practice in rehabilitation techniques. However the report on social integration proves inconclusive since no yardstick was used to measure results. The underlying problem here was that the national steering group lacked any authority to influence the district projects' management because the projects were Community-authorised and funded, of course, by the Community from the beginning. This was made worse by the lack of a clear mechanism for co-ordinating the various activities being undertaken in the first action programme.
The committee has rightly zeroed-in on the agreement on the objectives as being the only way to make the evaluation work, especially where we have local projects. Again, I agree, although perhaps I should remind your Lordships that it was not the Government who were responsible either for the projects or for the management of the evaluation. This responsibility fell on the Commission and the project leaders themselves. The same also applies to the continuation of the funding of the two local projects.
The objective of the second action programme is to carry on and expand the work of the first one without losing momentum. It goes by the intriguing name of the Greek sun god, semi-accidentally, I assume. Helios is actually an acronym standing for Handicapped People in the European Community Living Independently in an Open Society, whatever that means. Noble Lords have alluded to that point and I shall say something about it later on.
The Helios or second action programme also addresses a point that the committee made in relation to the first action programme; namely, that there was a low level of knowledge of the programme outside those directly involved. At the beginning of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, sought a reassurance that the Government would do more this time to help local projects and get value for money from the whole exercise. I am very glad to give that reassurance, although clearly our resources for these activities are limited. We had a very interesting speech on the limitation of resources yesterday from
674
my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, so I do not have to make that point too forcefully.
As a start, the Government have arranged a conference for all the local projects which will be held in Preston at the beginning of December. Perhaps I should say for the avoidance of doubt—bearing in mind one of the questions during Question Time at the start of your Lordships' business today—that I think it is very unlikely that any Minister will be going to that conference.
The Commission intends there to be two community-wide networks of local model activities representing, first, good practice in the field of vocational training and economic integration; and secondly, covering social integration and independent living. In addition there will be a further development of the network of rehabilitation centres. The management of these objectives within the networks is under active consideration by the Government, as are the resources required for this activity.
Side by side with this was the complaint that not enough was done to involve other voluntary organisations in the programme. I would say to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, that we Faye consulted widely on the Helios programme and invited applications from a wide variety of organisations throughout the United Kingdom. There is no excuse this time for anyone who wants to know not knowing. We have made it clear—and this has been welcomed by the committee—that we want to concentrate on achieving a better balance between the various elements of the programme by concentrating on encouraging innovation within existing programmes of activity rather than setting up new projects. An example of this is the inclusion of the disability resource centre at Waltham Forest which covers a wide range of disabilities and attempts to develop collaboration and co-ordination of services across a wide area at both local and national levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked how schemes had been selected for local projects. The projects have been selected to cover the various disability interests and to achieve a good geographical spread. That point will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and I shall come to him in a minute. The Commission and the projects selected have now been informed and of course we shall be happy to publish a list of successful projects.
Not surprisingly, the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen, himself and indeed one other noble Lord, mentioned—and I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I call them this—a subset of disabled people, those who are unfortunately mentally handicapped. I know of the direct interest in this of noble Lords. Of course it is vital to include the mentally handicapped in the scope of these action programmes. They were included within the scope of the local projects in the first programme and will also be included within the scope of the second programme.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Parry, who also spoke on this subject, that the value of MENCAP's work is of course recognised. Anyone who has gone through approximately the last 16 months opposite

675
the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, at the various Dispatch Boxes will be well aware of the invaluable work of MENCAP. The centre run by MENCAP at Pengwern Hall in North Wales for young people with mental handicaps has been selected for the network of rehabilitation centres. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, will be glad of that.
I feel mildly injured by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, not because he did not discuss what he was going to say with me in advance but when he was remarking about the involvement of Northern Ireland in the action programmes, he clearly did not know that a project in Northern Ireland has been included in the vocational training network. However, I note and will of course pass on the noble Lord's remarks on the Province being represented on the national co-ordinating committee because I agree with him that this is most important.
Over and above these projects that I have been talking about, the multi-lingual database for disabled people known as Handynet which was begun but hardly got off the ground as part of the first action programme is to be carried forward, with priority given to the first part of this database, the Handyaids module on technical aids and equipment. The Commission intends to prepare a report to the Council of Ministers on the progess of Handyaids up to the end of June next year. The United Kingdom Government see this report as a way forward in identifying the need for and feasibility of the Handynet project and we shall reserve our position on this until then.
I would add in partial answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen that Handynet as such does not exist at present, as it is still very much in the developmental stage. The management and ownership of Handynet is an issue to be resolved at the end of the four-year programme. Its development at present is being funded through the Helios programme to which the United Kingdom has contributed its share.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked, why not go ahead with Handynet in the United Kingdom? I can tell him that the DHSS commissioned a consultancy study on the information needs of disabled people which was completed in the spring of this year. We are considering how to carry forward its conclusions at the local and national levels in the United Kingdom. I must say that we shall not wait for Handynet before carrying forward national developments, but clearly they should eventually be compatible.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to intervene. He mentioned disabled people. Is he also including in that the voluntary organisations that help disabled people?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course I shall be coming to the voluntary organisations in a minute but they are most certainly to be included. I was interested to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has acted as a partial Handynet system herself. We all try to do this in our own particular and
676
peculiar ways. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has been able to help someone in Italy.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, Spain.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry, Spain. Alongside the Handynet programme, the Commission intends to promote projects and award prizes for good practice in mobility and transport; access to public buildings, facilities and housing, including support for people living in independent accommodation. I agree with your Lordships' committee that in this country our objectives in taking Helios forward should be to overcome the problems that arose in the first action programme and to set out a clear and agreed working mechanism for overseeing the whole programme.
Clearly, we want to encourage maximum participation, to facilitate wide dissemination of information on good practice and to encourage the involvement of the public and voluntary sectors in the programme. These are all laudable aims and objectives and I hope that no one doubts that we in the United Kingdom will play our part. I suppose, though, that one of the reasons we are debating this report today is whether the treaty provides an adequate legal basis for binding Community measures on social integration. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised that point.
The Government made strenuous efforts to have this action programme adopted as a resolution rather than as a decision. In the end a compromise solution was adopted whereby the programme was accepted on the basis that social integration continued to lie with member states. I should like to make it quite clear that this Government will continue to resist proposals for Community action which are not practicable or desirable, particularly where they would deprive the United Kingdom of the ability to introduce measures better fitted to our own requirements.
In paragraph 73 the committee supported the aim of the action programmes to promote the social and economic integration of disabled people, but pointed out that a lack of precision when formulating them reduces their value. In general I accept this view, though I am sure the committee would agree with me that this recommendation should not carry the implication that the existing innovative schemes are automatically suitable for carrying forward. There has to be a limit to the time that any project can be seen to be innovative. Also, the degree to which the Government can manage their part of the programme will depend on the resources that can be made available. This applies also to the extent to which we can involve non-governmental organisations.
While the Government agree that the voluntary bodies should be involved, this should not be taken to mean any award of Section 64 grants would automatically follow for those bodies. Nonetheless, I would agree that efforts, such as exchange visits, should be made to protect and promote the important contribution of volunteers in assisting disabled people to live independently. The

677
Commission is prepared within the programme to pay for certain networking activities, including the provision of information and advice as well as study visits, seminars and so on, up to certain specified amounts.
The committee welcomed the greater involvement of non-governmental organisations, and as a strong supporter of voluntary bodies myself I am glad that it did. It also suggested that this could provide a forum for consultation. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will have observed, a two-tier structure has already been set up at Community level. He will be glad that a national structure to involve the voluntary bodies in the United Kingdom is under active consideration. The Government thus believe that the European Community has also addressed the issue of the role of non-governmental oganisations and experts being strengthened in both the planning and implementation of future Community initiatives. While we generally accept this for the United Kingdom part of the programme as well, the noble Lord will agree with me that the normal constraints that apply on public expenditure should mean that this activity will not get out of hand.
I am very pleased that the committee took the view that disabled people are not a homogeneous group. Indeed, a rapid reading of the recent OPCS survey on disability in Great Britain entitled Report No. 1, Prevalence of. Disability Among Adults, bears this out. Nonetheless, I do not see the same difficulty as the committee does in defining disability as a particular problem within what the action programme seeks to achieve. The main objective is to cover all disability groups, and as far as I can see this has been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a group of specific examples of different incomes from benefits for disabled people. I do not wish to make snap remarks and snap judgments on them, because clearly it is most difficult to comment on the figures for benefit entitlement mentioned by the noble Lord without knowing more about the circumstances of the people whom he cites as examples. I should be very interested to know the details and the evidence on which he made his remarks. The noble Lord clearly has such evidence.
Having said that, it is clear initially that there was a division in the unfortunate circumstances which led to some people receiving non-contributory benefits, some people receiving contributory benefits and some people even receiving state pensions; from the MoD, for example, in the last case. The OPCS report will, when it is complete, present us with an unprecedented volume of information about people with disabilities. We shall use that to examine the performance of our existing benefit system.
The definition of disability is one thing; that of independent living is quite another. Indeed, I would question whether a common definition of independent living is required at either national or European level. I understand that the problem of defining independent living caused particular difficulties at the time that the discussions took place on the Helios programme. At one stage it caused hilarity to the Spanish delegation, who explained that the translation into their language implied the programme was concerned with gypsies!
678
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, confirmed my suspicion that the committee found this a difficult subject area. The problem is that independent living means different things to different people. My noble friend Lord Swinfen movingly described degrees of independent living. I have no doubt that it would be very difficult to achieve a common definition here. I am not even sure that it is worth the bother. However, it is possible that common factors will emerge and our approach has been to include a range of activities as examples of how independent living can be interpreted. I do not know whether we shall achieve a common consensus on this point. We shall have to wait and see as the results of the programmes come before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, was to an extent answered by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I believe it must be recognised that the needs of disabled people vary greatly. Some are well able to work and to follow successful careers by overcoming the effects of their disability; others require different degrees of help. So it is difficult for governments to prescribe common solutions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, will remember that many years ago when he was very much in command of his subject and before, I must confess, I was in a position to take—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must finish what I was going to say, before I am accused of being patronising. I was pointing out that the noble Lord was a distinguished doctor well before I took much interest in the affairs of disabled people. I do not think that is patronising at all.
The noble Lord will remember that in those days the phrase as regards disabled people used to be "sick and disabled people". I believe that it thereby distinguished between the two groups. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made what thought was a devastating point in this connection when she referred to the fact that disabled people needed to be fit in order to cope as well as they could with their particular disability. If one needs to be fit, by definition one cannot be sick.
What in my roundabout way I am coming to say is that I feel that because of that it would be quite wrong for disabled people to be looked after by a public health commission, though I fully understand—we have had discussions about this—that a public health commission could have other valuable roles.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that there are different solutions to common social problems in the Community. Clearly, we need to develop practical and desirable solutions. However, we see the main responsibility as being within the member states, who are best placed to judge on national needs and priorities. Certainly in taking forward national policies we recognise the importance of taking account of what is happening elsewhere in the Community.
My noble friend Lady Cox was backed up, as it were, by another noble Lord. I can say that as my noble friend is absent. She talked of what she called

679
the paucity of evidence in other EC states. I note that the committee comments that the evidence it received contained examples of good practice within the United Kingdom, and it describes some interesting ideas concerning benefits for disabled people. I heard what the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Parry, said about partial pensions according to the degree of disability. We already incorporate that concept into our thinking and indeed actions in the war pension scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will remember that.
I believe that we need to do everything that we can to encourage disabled people into more productive lifestyles, whether that means direct employment, partial employment or even the volunteering which noble Lords have talked about. However, with 16 months' experience of responsibility for the war pensions scheme behind me I am sceptical, to say the least, about extending it more widely to disabled people. I would add that until we have the full set of OPCS surveys we shall not be able to judge whether the substantial resources already allocated to benefits and services for people with disabilities are properly targeted. I accept that the Government do indeed need to see whether there are better ways of providing help for those who need it most, and further thought will have to be given to that matter.
In partial answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, of course the Government are aware of the development of advocacy schemes and support those initiatives. We recognise the possibility for further development as a result of provisions relating to authorised representatives being introduced into the Disabled Persons Act 1986. However, a lot of work is required before the specific sections of that Act can be implemented, as I have explained on numerous occasions to the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
I should like to say briefly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I am aware of the report Living Options Lottery by Barrie Fiedler, which he will remember was funded jointly by the Department of Health and Social Security and the King's Fund. We recently received the report and are considering it. The study shows that there is still a long way to go to achieve full independence for all disabled people. We welcome the many examples of good practice which it highlights and the fact that it demonstrates how even severely physically disabled people, given the right support, can live independent, fulfilled lives within the community. I agree with him on that point.
I hope that the whole House will agree with me that this has been a most constructive debate. Many noble Lords have paid tribute today to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The subject of social affairs across Europe and today's sub-set of issues in the socioeconomics of disabled people is very diverse indeed. I believe that we are all indebted to the noble Lord for exercising the wisdom of Solomon in this matter. Clearly, it was a most difficult report to draw up and put together. I hope that I shall not be accused again of being patronising.
Your Lordships have again targeted your thoughts on an area of social and economic policy by means of which the European Community is making a
680
valuable contribution to developing awareness of the needs of disabled people. The United Kingdom Government are playing their full part and our aim is to ensure that the programmes redound to the benefit of disabled people in the United Kingdom. The Government will keep that aim clearly in view.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is now some three and a half hours since we started this debate and I do not propose to prolong it, appreciative as I am of the amount of business still to be done. Being astounded at my own moderation, although there has been so much talk of independent living I do not even intend to talk about the possible effect of the poll tax on that concept.
I have not felt patronised by the Minister and I should like to thank him for his most informative reply. It seems to me that lessons have been learnt from the first action programme, and the assurances the noble Lord has given hold out much better prospects for the second programme although we may possibly inquire about progress from time to time. My only slight disappointment is to learn of such a prosaic explanation of the Greek-flavoured title of the new programme.
I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. It seems to me that the numbers of those who have chosen to speak about what was certainly quite a difficult report and the wide variety of points which have been raised are some indication of the interest and care which this House feels for the disabled in our society.
As I am on my feet there is one thing I should like to say. It seems to me most unfortunate that this debate, which I think is of some importance, was interrupted for so long by a Statement repeating something that was said in the other place. I know that it was an important topic and some interesting speeches were made during the debate, rather long though they were. However, it seems to me that it would have been very much better had it been possible to arrange for the Statement to be made between the two debates, as happens when short debates on Wednesday afternoons are in progress. I hope that there may be some opportunity for taking that up with the Procedure Committee.
Having said all that, I shall content myself with adding that there is a great deal to be read and studied in Hansard and repeating my thanks to all those who contributed to the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Price Review 1988–89: ECC Report
6.46 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Farm Price Review 1988–89 (15th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 85).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the normal course of events to be discussing the common agricultural policy farm price review midway through

681
the year to which the review itself relates would be considered in most polite circles a doubtful use of time. However, I believe that the special nature of this year's farm price review and the background against which it took place justify us in giving some consideration to the matter and in particular in taking note of the report on the proposals made for 1988–89 which your Lordships' Select Committee prepared at the material time.
The year 1988–89 was in a sense unique for farm prices in the Community. First, it was the year in which financial disciplines agreed at the European Council of Heads of State in February 1988 were applied to farm prices. That was reflected in the nature of the proposals made by the Commission. In effect we had a standstill arrangement so far as prices were concerned. The standstill was necessary to conform to the new financial disciplines to which the farm budget is now subject.
Because of that special factor, the Select Committee decided to take evidence from the Treasury on the matter. At page 17 of the report noble Lords will see elaborated the five safeguards which the Treasury now consider should be sufficient to prevent any repetition of settlements far exceeding the capacity of the Community to pay for them within its existing financial ability.
At the same time, I believe that it is necessary where farming is concerned to make it clear that there are no absolute safeguards even for expenditure under the common agricultural policy. There will always be factors such as the weather worldwide, the special relationship between the dollar and the ecu so far as pricing is concerned and harvest variations in the 12 member states of the Community, covering as they do such a wide geographical area and representing very significant differences in climate.
As I said, the price proposals themselves were for a standstill arrangement. We have summarised those briefly—and I hope adequately—in Appendix 3 of the report. In that beloved phrase "real terms" the standstill arrangement represented a 2·8 per cent. decrease in prices. Because of the standstill nature of the proposals, your Lordships' Select Committee decided to concentrate on what the report describes as "related measures" as well as the agri-monetary proposals contained in the Commission's original proposition. These related measures included the incorporation of a premium for cereals, the extension of milk quotas until 1992 and a decision not to extend the variable premium for beef beyond 1988. We did not consider the sugar proposals at all because the view of the sub-committee was that it will be necessary at some time for us to have a comprehensive look at the sugar position within the Community. The only agri-monetary proposal originally put forward was one for a 10 per cent. cut in the monetary compensation amounts for Greece.
We took evidence as usual from farmers, from food manufacturers, from the Home Grown Cereals Authority, from environmental groups and from consumers. There was inevitably, in such a wide spectrum of evidence-giving, some conflict of views notwithstanding the limited nature of the changes proposed. We are grateful, as always, to the bodies
682
which submitted evidence to us and in particular to those witnesses who came along to give us oral evidence as well as their written submisssions.
The committee very quickly found itself forming a view against the incorporation premium for cereals. We reluctantly accepted the need for milk quotas to be extended until 1992. On beef, we decided to defer detailed consideration because it was obvious even at that time that the Commission was due to produce new proposals for a beef regime, as the existing regime will expire on the 31st December this year.
So far as agri-monetary measures are concerned, strong representations were made to us for and against a devaluation of the green pound, as well as of the Greek drachma. The farmers favoured a very large devaluation, the Ministry of Agriculture was in favour of a small one and consumers were against any devaluation, because they said it would lead to some increase in prices and prices were already high enough.
With the then current appreciation of sterling—that is to say, at May 1988—details of which are given at page 49 of our report, the value of the United Kingdom monetary compensation amounts had fallen by almost 40 per cent. This reduced significantly the distortions caused by monetary compensation amounts, and that was especially so in the case of pig meat.
Monetary compensation amounts themselves are due to be eliminated by stages by 1992, and the committee supports this proposal but doubts whether it is achievable within such a tight time scale. Meanwhile, having to choose between the evidence given to us and the submissions made, the committee supported the concept of a modest green pound devaluation, provided that savings could be achieved elsewhere in the budget and provided that it did not give rise to any necessity for fudging the proposals. In fact the outcome of the negotiations, as I am sure the Minister will tell us, was that a 3.2 per cent. devaluation was agreed for Britain, resulting in a small increase in shop prices. Other member states also got devaluations, but I notice that France and Ireland received smaller devaluations than the United Kingdom. The settlement of the proposals for the year was stymied for a while by the Greeks, who wanted a devaluation in excess of 10 per cent. In the end they got it and, as I say, others managed to get devaluations as well.
So far as co-responsibility levies, which are currently applicable to milk and cereals, are concerned, the Select Committee has never been enamoured of such levies in principle. In particular, we have never been especially fond of the rules for levying these amounts, because the exemptions granted under the co-responsibility arrangements tend to favour small producers and, to that extent, are discriminatory so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
We are also concerned, as a committee, about the way in which the milk and cereal levies so raised are used by the Commission. The Commission is naturally reluctant to give up a lucrative revenue source. We believe that the future of co-responsiblity levies needs discussion in the light of the decision to

683
continue the dairy quota until 1992 and of the introduction of stabilisers for cereals. We favour a reduction in co-responsibility levy rates as a prelude to their abolition. If the Minister has time when replying, we should welcome a view on this proposition.
So far as the incorporation premium for cereals in animal feedstuffs is concerned, we give detailed reasons for our criticism of this idea at page 7 of the report. It is basically a device to increase the use of cereals and feedingstuffs by means of subsidy of the cereals so used. As there is little scope for this in the United Kingdom because our feedingstuffs already contain, so we are told, a very high proportion of cereals, we think that the scheme is of little value to the United Kingdom and, as drafted, it would be difficult to administer and likely to be cost-ineffective. However, it gives member states who use cereal substitutes an option of switching from things like manioc to animal feedstuffs incorporating cereals at a cheaper rate. That did not console us particularly and seemed another reason for being critical of the proposition as such.
We understand that a decision on this question has been deferred, and it may be that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight whether there is any movement so far as the idea is concerned, or whether it is likely to be consigned to the category of something that was started but has not been acted upon because of the criticisms made of it.
So far as dairy quotas are concerned, we agreed reluctantly to a continuation of quotas until 1992, in accordance with the recommendation. At the same time we have added a rider to our acceptance, to the effect that we do not see quotas as being an answer to the long-term problems of the dairy industry. The phrase we use is that it may, "fossilise patterns of production". I am aware, of course, that there are those who disagree sharply with this view. They are of the opinion that because quotas are transferable fossilisation is not likely to be a problem.
I think it is very difficult to argue coherently one way or the other, without looking at a much broader picture than was possible during our review of the Commission's proposals. For example, Members will be aware that the 1988 importation of milk regulations take effect from 16th November this year. It seems to me that by any reckoning these will have a long-term effect on the dairy industry in the United Kingdom, and may possibly have a very serious effect on doorstep deliveries in the United Kingdom, because at first glance they seem to permit member states to send a very wide variety of milk and milk products to this country without let or hindrance, provided that they satisfy the necessary standards. That is a position we have always known would arise. It now seems to be very much a fact of life and I think it indicates that no fixed position can be taken up on the question of whether or not dairy quotas, which have worked so well so far, can be regarded as a permanent solution to the problems of the dairy industry throughout the Community.
In this regard, I might mention that the stock position of butter in the European Community has,
684
as a result of the imposition of quotas, fallen by two-thirds and now stands at 400,000 tonnes, of which the United Kingdom's stock is a mere 70,000 tonnes. I use the word "mere" in the context of the days that were. The stock of skimmed milk powder in the Community, which amounted to 1 million tonnes, is now virtually nil.
This clearance of stock is something that always brings a great sigh of relief to those who have been associated with the problems of overstocking, but it is necessary to mention in passing that the stock clearance has been achieved at considerable cost to the Community and has indeed been of little benefit to consumers within the Community. One fervently hopes that the measures now taken, particularly by the Heads of Government Meeting in Brussels last February, will prevent any recurrence of major buildups of stock, because they greatly discredit the concept of the common agriculture policy as such.
So far as the beef buying-in price is concerned, the Commission proposed removing provisions in calculating the beef buying-in price to save money on sales to intervention. We supported this proposition because it seemed to us that the modifications to the beef regime made in 1986 have not had any significant impact in reducing the volume of beef sold to intervention. We understand that an adjustment of the buying-in price has been made. I wonder whether this has had any effect on the intervention position so far. Perhaps the Minister would mention this in replying to the debate.
We made no comment on the proposals for wine, fruit and vegetables, protein crops, tobacco and olive oil. The proposals for these commodities were in line with those for other commodities which I have mentioned. However, the continuing need for evenhanded treatment of crops produced in the southern half of the European Community remains quite serious. This is particularly true in view of the enhanced opportunities that southern member states now have to increase their sales in northern states of the Community. Those noble Lords who study the labels on canned fruit will be hard put these days to find very much in the shops from South Africa. On the other hand, great quantities come from Greece, Italy and Spain. It is important that the southern states should be reminded of the fact that the northern half of the Community gives them an opportunity for selling their products and taking advantage of the situation.
At the beginning of my remarks I mentioned that the settlement was overshadowed by the financial disciplines imposed by the Brussels summit. I think that we can say that the future of the common agricultural policy looks considerably brighter than it did a few years ago. There is a reasonable balance between money available and the amount of food being produced. The limits on budget increases, the use of stabilisers with maximum guaranteed quantities in place, the use of quotas for milk and the use of market management, which are all important factors, have combined if not to transform the CAP then at least to make it appear a more favourable policy than it was three or four years ago.
I am too old a hand to imagine that no other problems exist, but I think that I can say truthfully that major steps have been taken towards a solution of existing problems. The regimes that apply in the Community are still far too complex as such and are certainly not understood by all those directly affected by them. Some attempt should be made to make the structure of the CAP more intelligible to farmers and shoppers. It is a considerable intellectual exercise at present to achieve the foggiest idea of how the system works.
I remain convinced that the common agricultural policy is at the heart of the European Community. Without a common agricultural policy I believe that there would have been no free movement of manufactured goods in the European Community in the first place, and so in a sense there might not have been a Community at all. The prospect of achieving total free movement of goods by 1992 would be considerably more remote than it now is. I look forward to the achievement of the full Community by 1992, not only for the reason that it may take the heat off the CAP, but because there will be in Europe a new focal point for the opinion of the people who are citizens of the European Community. Having said that, I advise those concerned with agricultural matters to maintain the strictest vigilance, which I think will always be necessary where assistance to farming is concerned. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Farm Price Review 1988–89 (15th Report, 1987–88, HL paper 85).—(Lord Gallacher.)
7.4 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, when we reported on the 1987–88 farm price proposals in April last year we summarised the difficulties involved in reducing the expense of the common agricultural policy arising out of surplus production by saying:
"The Community's problems are aggravated by the conflict between the objectives of the Treaty of Rome in terms of maintaining farm income and the insupportable burden that would be placed on the budget were the agricultural support to have remained open ended".
The Community has taken belated but strong measures to curb spending. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, reminded us, the milk quota imposed in 1984 was reduced in 1986 and again for 1988–89.
Following an effective 7 per cent. cut in cereal prices in the previous year, last year's price fixing and related measures amounted to a further drop in support of the order of 9 per cent. for bread wheat, 12 per cent. for feed grains and a slashing 25 per cent. for oil seed rape. This year's price fixing has to be seen as part of a package consisting of three elements: first, the freeze on prices which, as the noble Lord reminded us, in real terms means a further cut of 3 per cent., secondly, stabilisers; and thirdly, the imposition of a ceiling on total agricultural spending. As we saw when we debated stabilisers last February, support prices for cereals are to be reduced whenever production exceeds a guaranteed threshold of 160 million tonnes.
686
I am always mystified about how the Commission thinks that it is going to get accurate cereal production figures from all the member states. Estimates for the 1988 harvest vary. The one that we used in the report was for a 1988 harvest of 162·5 million tonnes of cereals. On that basis, next year's corn prices would be cut by another 3 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to the co-responsibility levy. That is the part of the stabiliser mechanism which affects farmers most obviously and is additional to any price cuts. I see that I am just now paying £7 per tonne on barley so that amounts approximately to another 7 per cent. reduction.
The Minister of Agriculture said in a debate in another place in May this year:
"I hope that no one will be in any doubt about the potentially severe impact of stabilisers and hence pressure on farmers if production continues to rise … But in cereals, if Community production exceeds the maximum guaranteed quantity of 160 million tonnes by whatever amount regularly over the next four years, intervention and buying—in prices will automatically be cut by as much as 12 per cent., coming on top of reductions in recent years.
Cumulatively, that could mean that by 1983 the common level of support for cereal producers could be as much as one third lower than it was in its peak in 1983–84".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/5/88; col. 1038.]
All this adds up to a substantial reduction in support.
Furthermore, as the report points out and as the noble Lord reminded us, UK farmers are still disadvantaged in comparison with our European competitors through the operation of MCAs, although this burden has been lightened to some extent by the appreciation of sterling and by our Minister's achievement in obtaining for the United Kingdom a further reduction in the monetary gap of 3·2 points starting next year.
It is probably too soon to make an assessment of the effect of this year's February agreement on re-launching the Community budget, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the general picture in November 1988 is different from that which we contemplated when debating last year's price proposals 15 months ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has referred to the weather. The vagaries of the world's climate remind us once again that annual world production of grain does not always exceed consumption. This year's drought in large areas of North America and in Asia is likely to cause an excess of consumption of 150 million tonnes. For the first time since 1973 strategic grain reserves are in danger of falling below the FAO target level of 250 million tonnes.
In Europe there has been a significant rundown in intervention stocks. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to milk powder, the stocks of which have disappeared. Butter stocks are down by nearly 70 per cent. The wheat mountain is smaller by 34 per cent. and the beef mountain is beginning to shrink. Oil seed rape production, probably due to the cut in 1987, has this year fallen by an estimated 600.000 tonnes. Because of the reduction in spending on export refunds due to higher world cereal and oil seed prices and to the reduction in intervention stocks, Community spending on agricultural market support is running well below forecast levels. In budgetary terms, 1989 spending is now thought to be 1·7 billion

687
ecus below the agricultural framework level. A great deal has therefore been done to reduce the burden on the budget. Surplus stocks have been reduced, partly for this reason and partly because of the weather, and the Community's finances are in a healthier state.
Perhaps I may now turn to the other objective of the Treaty of Rome to which I referred earlier: maintaining farm income. We noted last year that over 10 years there had been an average fall in the purchasing power of net farm income in the Community of just over 25 per cent. In the UK it had been just under 40 per cent. When we debated stabilisers earlier this year I drew attention to the very depressing figures relating to average net farm income in the UK contained in MAFF's 1988 review. To the dismal figures for the previous five years was added a gloomy forecast, and I quoted MAFF's 90 per cent. drop in projected 1987–88 net income for English cereal growers compared with 1982–83. I refer again to MAFF's 1988 review. Although farm output has risen by 20 per cent. in the last 10 years, bank indebtedness mounted fivefold over the same period.
All over the country there is a strong feeling among farmers that they are under pressure. These figures would seem to give some substance to their worries. The hard fact is that the process of getting the CAP under control is bound to be a painful one for farmers. All noble Lords who spoke in debates on last year's prices and on stabilisers acknowledged this.
I believe that somewhere in the report we refer to the necessity in the long term for a more market-oriented agriculture. To achieve this will make great demands on farmers as they strive to produce at lower cost. As I have said before, the brakes are being applied very sharply. If the metaphor used is that of the curb, I would say that the effect on a horse is similar to that of brakes on a motor vehicle: sharp application throws it off balance. I make this point because the Commission, having taken strong corrective action to curb farm production for budgetary reasons, is now proposing new measures that would place restrictions on agricultural production for environmental reasons. Some of these proposals are to come forward this year.
If farmers are in danger of being thrown off balance by the budgetary controls—and I have indicated that this may be happening now—then any additional proposed controls should be scrutinised with the utmost care.
It is fashionable at present to worry about the environment; and it is right to do so. I care very deeply about such matters. However, we must make sure that the very best scientific advice is taken on environmental matters. Here I believe that your Lordships' Select Committee could have a significant part to play in eliciting such opinion. There is nothing that will damage the British countryside more than an agricultural depression. Noble Lords who are as old as I am will remember how horrible some parts of the country looked in the 1930s. A balance has to be struck between the maintenance of food production by an efficient home industry on the one hand and, on the other hand, the best and most sensitive use and
688
management of the environment. We must not allow the balance to be tipped the wrong way in either direction.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we are discussing a report, published some time ago, which has been overtaken by events. However, it is a very good time to discuss it because we are seeing the effects of the measures proposed and taken. There has been a certain amount of success as regards the Commission's main objective in the last few years at the hand of the council and of those who have taken part in the common agricultural policy: that objective being to bring the surpluses under control. Without doubt we have had some success. Ten years ago subcommittee D said that we had to have a restrictive price policy, that we had to give warnings to farmers, and that forward planning was needed. Unfortunately, nothing happened. The Council kept putting up prices for political reasons. Nothing was done, and now we have to take very sharp action, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has stated.
There is little doubt that there has been much success with the milk quota. It has reduced the surpluses enormously. No doubt my noble friend Lord Walston will be citing this. He has long said that the quota, or some such device, is the way to bring the surplus under control. That has been proven with milk.
I do not agree with the general opinion of the committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Gallagher, that it is desirable to do away with quotas. I simply say that the system is working. Although the dairy farmers' income has dropped, along with others, they are among the better off sections of the agricultural community, and the surpluses are coming under control. That must be success.
I believe that beef will probably cure its surplus because of the policy for dairy farming. There are already signs that we need more suckler cows in this country and in Europe if we are to keep up the supply of beef which the people are eating in increasing quantities.
As regards cereals, we are experiencing some savage and unfair-to-farmers practices after the encouragement that they have been given to grow cereals. I believe that they are working. The one that works best is the simple fact that the Commission can now control intervention. It can cut intervention at certain times and it can bring it in at other times. By doing so, it can keep the price down and thereby drive the farmers on the poorer land out of cereal production and back into the stock farming that perhaps they should be undertaking.
I agree entirely with my excellent chairman the noble Lord, Lord Gallacherwho has been a very good chairman of Sub-Committee D—that the co-responsibility payment is a mess, grossly unfair, does not do anything for consumption, is awkward to apply and everything else. The incorporation scheme I believe is even worse. I cannot see it working with any degree of success whatsoever, and I hope that the Government will do all in their power to see that it does not come into being in this country.

689
Price discipline will bring cereals both in this country and in the Community into line. The use of intervention powers and the use of stabilisers will bring our cereal production on to the kind of land that should be producing it and will bring cereals under control.
The fact is that the £27½ billion—a lovely phrase, "billion pounds"—which goes to supporting agricultural prices, does not go to the farmer. The people I know in our part of the world who have made a lot of money have been the people who have built stores. They have become extremely prosperous, and some of them have now sold the stores and moved back into farming. That is very sensible and very good, but it is not a long-term policy for agriculture in Europe. That ties up with what we have been talking about regarding milk. If production can be restricted and at the same time a fair price is paid then we shall start to get somewhere. We are not really in a position where the world is rolling with food. We quote the surpluses in the States and in Europe, but quite small and quite usual natural disasters suddenly reduce the stocks. For example, in the States stocks of wheat in 1989 will be half the 1988 stocks. Feed grains are down by 36 per cent. These are enormous figures. It means that we have to look after agriculture in this country. It is still a great industry, an enormous contributor to our extraordinarily bad balance of payments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, agriculture is the mainstay of a beautiful, interesting and alive countryside. We do not require any more savage attacks on the living of the farmers and their men on the land. I am sure that much thinking still has to be done about extensification. If the food is produced off more land then that land is waiting if one gets into trouble and one can return to more extensive cultivation.
I am glad to see that the Council for the Protection of Rural England is coming round to this point of view. I hope that, whichever Minister replies, he or she will give us the benefit of the Government's thinking along these lines. There is little doubt in my mind that if we preserve the land and the fabric of the industry that will be a wise move because all over the world man is destroying the natural environment. We have examples of what has been done in Africa which, from one end to another, is an example of land going out of production—"desertification" is a ridiculous word, but it is not a funny word in terms of the millions of acres going out of production. We have—we hear about it, and rightly so—the destruction of rain forests all over the world, not only in the Amazon and Africa, but in the Far East as well. The human race is so clever, so sharp, that we shall cut ourselves. The least we can do in Europe is to see that we preserve a balanced agriculture which may be needed very greatly in the future.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, as always the Select Committee has produced an admirable report. We have now been accustomed for many years to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, presiding over a wise and objective committee. He has expounded what the
690
committee has produced in his usual clear and concise manner.
What is less usual about this debate is that while we normally can agree on what I have just said year after year, it is usual for us and certainly for me to criticise in very many respects what Brussels has produced and what it is proposing. However, on this occasion I am happy— indeed, somewhat surprised—to be able to say that it has at last produced the outline of a policy which has some chance of success. Brussels appears to have succeeded in limiting the amount of its expenditure on the common agricultural policy. If it really has succeeded by the end of the year I think one can say that it will be the first time, ever since the common agricultural policy first came into being.
What is more, and possibly more significant, it has now at last followed the advice which your Lordships have frequently given, and other people too, of attempting to produce a moderately long-term policy for agriculture to explain to farmers throughout the whole of the Community what they are being asked to produce, not simply for the current year—when obviously it is far too late to have any effect on what they are doing—but for two or three years ahead.
Let us hope that all will be encouraged by that and will produce an even longer-term policy for at least five years ahead. In the meantime, by all means let us be grateful for mercies which are not all that small in the context of the Community.
I pick two specific points out of the report. My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has already mentioned one of them, and so has the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher; that is, the milk quotas. As my noble friend has reminded the House, this is something that I have for long advocated. However, I have always been aware of its dangers and the fact that it can, if left unfettered, produce in certain areas a relatively small privileged class of farmers who, having acquired the quota, are able to continue producing milk regardless of their efficiency, rather than letting a controlled degree of market forces eventually squeeze out the less efficient and those in the less suitable areas and encourage newcomers to come in who are more suitable or existing farmers to expand. We do not want to have a frozen pattern of milk production or any other kind of production.
One of the tasks confronting those concerned with the long term of the common agricultural policy is to work out methods by which the quotas for milk, sugar beet and other products can be modified so that production will go to those who are most efficient and favourably placed.
My second point has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and I should like to re-emphasise it; it is MCAs. They are a complete nonsense and a grave disadvantage to British farmers. Paragraph 34 of the report states:
"Prices in France and Ireland were about 9 per cent. higher and those of the Netherlands up to 17 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom".
To a large extent that is due to MCAs.
Table 4 in paragraph 50 shows the difference between the national currency value of CAP support prices applied in Germany and the United Kingdom

691
up to 13th March and from 2nd May. For cereal intervention prices the difference was 21 per cent. and 14 per cent.; for dairy product intervention prices it was 21 per cent. and 13 per cent.; for beef guide prices it was 12 per cent. and 5 per cent.
They are significant differences in price. To put it mildly, it is misleading to say that we have a common agricultural policy when the prices which are paid to farmers in the Netherlands, France, Ireland and Germany differ to such a marked extent from those paid to British farmers. It is because of the exchange mechanism.
I ask noble Lords to take seriously paragraph 57 of the report . It states:
"The difficulty of mca abolition is much greater for those Members States whose currencies are not participating in the EMS exchange rate mechanism—i.e. Greece, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom".
Although it is far from this debate, if any additional argument were needed that is a reason why we should move into the exchange rate mechanism with the least possible delay. Without that, such disparities and divergencies cannot be overcome.
Two further points have been touched upon by other noble Lords. I shall not detain the House for long by mentioning them but they are of importance. For a long time we have been used to discussing agriculture in the Community and in this country in terms of surpluses, mountains, lakes, and so forth. We have forgotten that there were times, and that there could be times, when food was short. We have also forgotten the need that was so great in the 1950s for conserving foreign exchange by growing more food at home. Therefore we must not be misled by the surpluses.
I agree with those who say that they must be reduced, that they have been a great drain and that the common agricultural policy has many faults which are slowly being overcome. However, we must not think that life will be easy in the future, that come what may we shall never be short of food and that it will always be cheaper on the world market than within the EC. We must remember that a drought in the United States, a cold winter in the Soviet Union, floods in China, or whatever, can have a profound effect on world food supplies and world prices. It is not inconceivable that the years are not far distant when, if we pursue a policy of reducing domestic production too severely, we may find ourselves importing food not at the cheap world prices which we know today but at the inflated prices which occur when demand exceeds supply.
We must bear in mind an additional factor. It is that, apart from rising standards of nutrition throughout the world for which one hopes, the population of the world is rising at an alarming rate. By the end of the century there may be 1 billion more mouths to feed and the food must come from somewhere. It will be no good suddenly waking up to that fact when surpluses have disappeared and shortages have reappeared and saying, "Let us produce more". Everyone, even non-farmers, knows that farming is a long-term process. I am not arguing for a level which entails vast surpluses, but whatever
692
the level may be we must keep going an efficient agriculture in this country; we must keep good people on the land, both farmers and farmworkers; we must keep good scientists working to promote efficiency; and the infrastructure must be maintained.
Finally, I should like to reinforce what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Middleton, about the effect on the environment and the countryside of the declining prosperity in agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, claims to know what it was like in the 1930s. I claim to be considerably older than he and my experience of those days is still vivid. It is of overgrown hedges, silted-up ditches, rusting corrugated iron, thistles, nettles and brambles. It was an environment which today would create outcries of protest from the urban dweller. We have not yet reached that stage and I hope that we never shall; we are a long way from it. However, it is a picture which we must keep in the back of our minds. We can avoid it only by having a prosperous agriculture with profits for good farmers on good land producing what the community requires. In order to promote that kind of policy we must exert all our forces.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I spent a considerable amount of time composing a speech which I now find to be almost entirely inappropriate to the debate. However, my confidence is marginally restored by the observation that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has taken his place. Perhaps I may be permitted to confine myself to a few remarks on a local level. I am sure that the noble Lord will listen to them with his usual sympathy, even if the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, finds that they are not entirely relevant to her reply.
It seems to me that the whole situation is overshadowed by the varying value of the green pound and the variation in price support. Pitching the matter at a local level, the differential between UK support prices in the dairy industry and those in the Republic of Ireland is approximately 6 per cent. That means that an exporter of butter in the Republic of Ireland receives a net MCA subsidy of £105 sterling per tonne if he is exporting to the UK and, indeed, an export refund of over £115 per tonne higher than that which would be received by a similar UK exporter if the butter was going to a third country.
That clearly discriminates against the UK and particularly so against Northern Ireland which is in a peculiar position; namely, it is the only part of the UK which has a land boundary with a different part of the EC with this differential applying. Therefore, smuggling between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland continues to take place and I envisage that it will go on taking place until those differentials have been eliminated. While the discrepancies exist, there will be this continuing situation of smuggling backwards and forwards and fortunes will be made by certain people out of that illicit activity.
I wonder whether or not that is an area on which the Anglo-Irish Agreement could take constructive

693
and concerted action. As we have said before—and I know this is not pertinent to the debate—the Anglo-Irish Agreement has come in for much criticism because it always seems to discuss political matters. If it were to address itself to matters of common interest which would make it acceptable to all sections of the community with the exception of the smugglers, would that not raise the profile, acceptability and desirability of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the eyes of people of all shades of opinion in the community? I throw that out as a suggestion.
Perhaps I may return to the status of the green pound in the EC. Representations have been made by the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board and others for a devaluation of significant proportions. In the event, the 3.2 per cent. reduction in MCAs and devaluation of the green pound is welcome and will help but it will only go part of the way towards reducing the sort of discrepancies of which we are speaking. Therefore, one hopes that Her Majesty's Government will press for further devaluation sufficient to move towards elimination of MCAs. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, MCAs are undesirable and something which ideally we should do much better without.
That leads on to the question of what will happen as regards the green pound and MCAs with effect from 1st January 1993. Perhaps it would be a slight understatement to say that Her Majesty's Government have shown a certain disinclination to join the EMS. I wonder how much difference that would make. I have asked various people who are well informed but who have not received a clear reply about that and who could not read any clear reply in this report. If the noble Baroness, in replying, can throw any further light on that, I should be very interested indeed to hear it.
On the subject of the co-responsibility levy which has already been mentioned, I cannot help wondering in the case of milk why it is still necessary to have the co-responsibility levy at the level at which it is at the moment. After all, its original purpose was to discourage milk production but we now have a quota situation whereby farmers are heavily penalised if they overproduce. In fact the cost of a medium to large herd of 300 cows could be £5,000 to £7,000 in co-responsibility levy each year. That seems to be excessive and can make the difference between profitability and non-profitability. I wonder why that is still necessary in a quota situation. Indeed, we know that part of the purpose of the co-responsibility levy was for publicity and promotion of milk products but surely that was only a small fraction of it. I wonder why the levy has to be continued at as high a level as is proposed at present.
On the subject of milk quotas, there still seem to be some unfair elements in the administration of the system. Arising from the Mulder case, other producers are suffering from the fact that those producers who voluntarily opted to go out of milk production in the 1970s and early 1980s and received monetary compensation for so doing, have been granted quotas after all. That has resulted in not a large but a significant penalty being laid on other producers who remained in milk production during that period.
694
Again, many UK producers have not received their tribunal awards in full. Perhaps I may quote Northern Ireland figures. Those who were due development awards—in other words farmers who happened in 1983 to be building up a herd and therefore their milk production was not up to the level which they were anticipating—have only received 95 per cent. of their award. Hardship cases, farmers whose herds were suffering from brucellosis or something of that sort in 1983, have only received 85 per cent. I feel that I must almost apologise for again referring to the 65,000 tonnes of extra quota which were originally awarded to Northern Ireland but which were not received and were distributed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. A certain recovery of that has been made but the full 65,000 tonnes have not yet been appropriated for Northern Ireland as was originally intended. I am sorry to say that that is something about which there is still resentment.
In conclusion, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his exposition of the report to which I listened with great interest.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, discussion of this report enables those of us who served on the committee to thank my noble friend Lord Gallacher for his chairmanship of that committee which l believe ends at the end of this Session. The combination of wit, firmness and courtesy which he showed from the Chair made service on the committee a positive pleasure.
The farming world has moved on, as is its wont, since the committee reported. On reading again the paragraphs which deal with the budgetary costs of the CAP, one is reminded of the effect of what I would describe as the constant farming variable; namely, the weather. I understand that the Commission is now heading for an underspend approaching £1 billion. That reminds us that one season's shortage of rain does more to save money on the CAP than years of the Prime Minister harangueing her European colleagues.
The report concentrated on three areas—the green pound, MCAs and incorporation premium. I deal with the premium first. We are all agreed that this is an absurd proposal and I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government will resist it as hard as they can. As regards the green pound and MCAs (which have been discussed already), are the Government still committed to the abolition of the whole paraphernalia of the green pound and MCAs by 1992?
The discussion on the report provides the opportunity for a more general agricultural debate. We should remind ourselves that however much the Government congratulate themselves on the control of the CAP budget, we should not forget that farm incomes have declined by more than 40 per cent. in real terms in the past 10 years. Farm incomes are at their second lowest level in real terms since the war. There is also the knock-on effect on the rural economy. Farmers spend about £9 billion in the rural community through wages and the purchase of goods

695
and services. We hear a great deal about the Government's economic success and are told that there is a budgetary surplus of some £10 billion. We are therefore entitled to ask: what are the Government's plans to deal with the real and depressing problem of depressed farm incomes?
This major industry, with an output of about £16 billion, is in serious recession. Jobs are being lost and there is now more uncertainty in the industry than I have known in my 31 years as an agricultural adviser. As I said, we are entitled to ask the Government to tell us their plans to restore the confidence of farmers and produce an increase in farm incomes in real terms.
We know that there are a number of issues concerning farming and the countryside. It is obvious from the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society that the environment, however defined, is clearly going to be the flavour of the decade. We also now have the Commission document on the future of the countryside. I understand that government proposals are due shortly on the extensification plan which is required by the Community. When will those proposals be produced? What is the timetable?
In the context of extensification, is the Minister aware of the interesting work which is being done at Aberystwyth? This shows that Government encouragement of organic farming through grant-aid may, on certain assumptions, be a cheaper policy in terms of its budgetary costs then either a set-aside programme or export refunds. Are the Government considering these options in the extensification proposals?
We should remind ourselves that as regards extensification and set-aside we have a surplus of food and not a surplus of land. By that I mean that we could use all the land we have by producing our food less intensively. We would thereby maintain employment in the countryside. It is a surplus of food which is our problem—and that is fast disappearing —and not, as it is often said, a surplus of land.
In the context of set-aside there is of course the effect on jobs which has been mentioned by several noble Lords in debates in the past. Even with the very limited take-up which we have seen for the first season (which we all expected) this almost certainly means a loss of about 750 full-time jobs without any form of compensation for the workers apart from statutory redundancy payments. There is also the effect among farm tenancies. I understand from a number of land agents that landlords are wondering whether they should re-let farms or take set-aside money.
I raise two points relating to farmers' costs and returns. The first is the problem of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. We know that the Government have agreed a level of compensation of 50 per cent. of market value. Are the Government aware of the dangers of unscrupulous producers who put suspect animals into the food chain in order to get their full cull value rather than take the 50 per cent. compensation offered by the Government? That is an example of shortsighted Treasury accounting for candle ends and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider policy in that respect.
696
There is another problem which I have already mentioned to the Minister outside the Chamber. This affects the input costs of farmers. There is a delay in granting licences of right for approval of chemicals, some of which have reached the end of the period under which they are protected by patent. Some of these chemicals have been on the market for a number of years. If they could be sold under licence of right that would reduce farmers' costs. Have the Government any plans to speed up the process of granting licences and to give some priority to products which have been on the market for a long time?
I conclude on a point that has been made by a number of speakers in this debate. We should reflect how quickly the farming picture can change and remind ourselves of the fragility of world food supplies. World wheat stocks have halved in two years. We are told that for sugar the supply and demand balance will be tight. The forecast is that beef production in the EC will be down by 5 per cent. World pigmeat production has declined for the first time in 10 years. As a pig producer I regard that as good news. There is nothing I enjoy so much as selling into a short market.
The increase in commodity prices generally indicates a very close supply and demand balance. We are now told that the greenhouse effect could be affecting us by the mid-1990s. That is only seven years away—the length of one farming rotation. I made my maiden speech in this House on the 1987 review. I conclude now with the same remark that I concluded with then. I quoted the wise remark by the late Arthur Street. He pointed out—and we learnt the wisdom of it this year—that all the efforts of the politicians and the bureaucrats are as nothing in their effect on farmers as the simple question of whether or not it rains tomorrow.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I take this opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, this morning chaired Sub-Committee D for the last time, of thanking him and again paying tribute to the wonderful way and to the good humour with which he led us through the complexities of the CAP.
I should like to take your Lordships a little on to the world stage in the context of this price settlement. Earlier this year I was lucky enough to attend a conference on world agriculture in Munich organised by Chatham House and three other organisations. From that it seemed to me that we are being a little parochial in thinking that the importance of reducing surpluses must be seen only in the context of the enormous cost to the EC budget. In fact, it is a major world problem. If we do not solve that problem it could seriously jeopardise the GATT round of discussions now being conducted and which will come to a head at the mid-term review next month in Canada.
The problem is that of subsidised over-production specifically in the United States, the Community and Japan. Hunger in the third world is not caused by lack of food but by poverty. The dumping of surplus food on the world market, which is a product of the

697
surpluses produced in the three countries mentioned, causes poverty in the rural communities of the third world—and a high proportion of the people in the third world depend on a rural economy. It also causes anger and economic crises in countries such as New Zealand.
My view is that the present situation is immoral. Whether or not is is immoral, unless the problem is solved it will cause real risk of breakdown in the GATT negotiations. A solution must therefore be found. The USA has proposed what it calls a zero option. In effect, this is a move towards free trade by the year 2000, though the USA has now retracted that precise date. At the meeting I attended, the US representatives were extremely aggressive, even offensive, towards the EC because the representatives of the Community were not prepared to follow that plan.
Whether the American Administration would be able to deliver free trade, I very much doubt, however. The alternative solution being suggested by the Community is a much more staged move towards a degree of free trade over a period of years. In this context I believe that it is worth mentioning the very interesting suggestion that the first move must be to arrive at a measurement of subsidy. This is needed because there are so many different forms of concealed subsidy which countries apply in order to benefit their farming communities. The Community has developed a concept called the PSE or producer subsidy equivalent. The idea is that if the subsidies of every kind provided by different countries could be reduced to some units of simple equivalence then it might be possible to move effectively and fairly towards a staged reduction in subsidy.
Whatever the plan, the surpluses must be reduced. It is against this background that we have to look at the settlement under discussion. Of course the price settlement is only a part of the package. There are the stabilisers and quotas that have been discussed this evening and there is also set-aside. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England made an interesting point in the paper which was sent to some of us that the most damaging aspect of set-aside is the philosophy that it has created. That is the idea that there is a surplus of land. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to this. There is not a surplus of land if we can think of something else to do with it. I am not entirely convinced that in every case we can.
Undoubtedly there is a surplus of food. The alternative to set-aside, which is the rather useless way of coping with apparently surplus land, is the possibility of extensification. The danger of this is that we end up with a countryside that is a museum. Extensification must be justified in the less favoured areas. It may be that it can be justified elsewhere—certainly, for example, where farmers wish to undertake organic farming. It would seem reasonable that they should receive the subsidy for doing so because they are in effect saving money by producing at a much lower rate of output per acre.
I believe that extensification can probably be achieved in terms of rotation, but whether it can be achieved effectively in terms of agricultural practices such as using smaller quantities of fertilisers, I am less
698
convinced. We have to see the present surplus situation and the present price review in the context of the inexorable technological advance in yields. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was not giving full weight to the 3 per cent. increase in yield capacity of our crops which we are told we are likely to see over the next decade.
Against this we have to set the political reality. Most people, and not only those who live in the countryside, are keen to avoid destroying the rural environment. This means also not destroying the rural community. I believe that some figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, suggest that if we do not want to destroy the rural community the reductions in price support that have taken place over the past few years will have to be offset by income aids which do not stimulate production. That is known as decoupling in EC jargon.
In this context, European farmers have said that they do not want to be paid for doing nothing and they do not want to be paid for being park keepers. British landowners and farmers have a very proud tradition of beautifying and looking after the countryside that they love. I believe that, as pressures increase for access to the countryside by a largely urban population, we may perhaps have to learn to enjoy doing as a job what in the past we did for love.
8.7 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the problem with being the last speaker before the Minister replies is that practically everything has been said. My noble kinsman who often follows me always makes that complaint and says that I have said exactly what he was going to say. That is slightly unfair. But that is just the way of things.
The problem with the report is the interval between the decisions of the EC, the committee si udying them and the writing of the report, and now our debating it. A period of over eight months have passed. Quite frankly, a good deal of it is almost academic. This is not in any way a criticism of the report because it was very necessary to look into the whole subject.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and his committee have done a good job in putting into the report all the details, outside the price, that affect the farming community in the EC and other places as well. On page 20 there is a list broken by two items, such as tobacco and something else, that do not grow in this country. One then turns to page 51 and looks at the wheat prices. I had to do many calculations to convert ecus into pounds and I hope that I have got it right.
I was in company with a few big cereal farmers at the weekend. They are selling wheat forward at prices that are much higher than the £112 which is the intervention price for feed wheat in the EC. Bread wheat is making much more than that. I believe that some very high quality bread wheat is almost approaching the target price. From that point of view it is a pity that this matter was not discussed a little earlier or that we did not have a debate on agriculture, because, basically, that is what this Unstarred Question is.

699
Another small point is that the table shows our inflation at 3·9 per cent. That is very much out of date and inflation will be almost double that figure by the end of the year if all that we are told is true. That rather spoils the arguments put foward in the table. All these matters emphasise the volatile nature of food production. Quite a few noble Lords have emphasised this, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who also referred to other matters that create this situation.
I believe it is dangerous to make too many presumptions about food surpluses or food stocks. The FAO maintains—I believe this figure was quoted—that anything below a 17 per cent. reduction in stocks is too low. I believe it is now down to 16 per cent. and still falling. The argument that this situation can be rectified very quickly is not too strong. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who has just sat down, said that we have many people setting aside for at least three years if not five. I spoke with some Canadian and American farmers and it appears that some of the larger producers of cereals in other countries are not too keen to go back to higher production after the so-called lessons of the past.
The main issue is this. The world population is steadily rising and if industrial production increases and the standard of living in developing countries continues to rise, the demand for food will rise very fast indeed. Today I had quite a long talk with the new Indian High Commissioner on this subject. He maintained, as have various other people in this debate, that the issue is not the lack of food but the lack of money: it is poverty that creates hunger.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised this point but I think he is wrong in one respect. At present, putting cheap food into some of these countries depresses prices for local peasants who are by no manner or means feeding the population. This happened 20 years ago when barley prices fell in this country. The deficiency payment was created to raise prices in this country to local farmers. At that time we were buying a great deal of food from abroad but we managed to bring it in without destroying the incomes of home farmers. We have to teach those governments to do just that. They should not starve their people for the sake of keeping going a low standard of production. This point should be emphasised.
I discussed my next point with the Indian High Commissioner. At present consumption per capita of all grains in India is only about 202 kilos. In the United States consumption per capita is 845 kilos. He emphasised that most of the American consumption is left on plates because that 845 kilos is converted into meats and so on. A decent standard of nutrition requires about 450 kilos, which is about the consumption figure in this country. Half the world's population consumes below that figure. There is still a tremendous demand for food, a point emphasised by nearly every speaker today. We must watch carefully what we do in terms of cutting back production, setting aside land and so on. I agree that there is a local EC problem of surpluses and stocks
700
and the cost of getting rid of them. Nevertheless we can solve that problem and still watch our step carefully. The rise in the world's population is quite fantastic. A very well documented report in The Lancet said that, because population control is not working, the world's population by 2030 will be 7,500 million. One can imagine how much food such a population will require. There will be an unlimited demand for food in the very near future.
I mentioned a price freeze and I referred to a table in the report. As to incorporating more cereals into feed, I do not know who thought of that one but I hope to goodness that it will be dropped with a clang. I cannot see how that would work and it would be a bureaucratic mess.
My next point concerns the green pound and MCAs. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, pointed out that the whole thing is inexplicable to most people. Paragraph 26 on page 10 of the report should be read carefully. Most people do not understand the subject; and while I am not an authority the people I talk to believe that the problem will not be solved until we join the European monetary system. We all know the difficulty of trying to understand the MCAs and the green pound.
Consumers gave evidence to the committee. I cannot understand why we cannot make the point more clearly to them that food today is much cheaper than it was in the 1930s. In the case of milk, one hour's work today by the average working man, who earns about £150 to £156 a week, will buy 17 pints of milk at 22p a pint. One hour's work in 1950—the average working man then earned about £2.50 a week—would buy only five pints of milk. That is the difference in milk prices. The same would apply to the price of meat and ordinary brisket. It should be pointed out to people how cheap food is today compared with 30 or 40 years ago.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, was my noble kinsman referring to 1930 or 1950?
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think I said the 1930s. I hope that someone will back me up against my noble kinsman, I am sure I referred to the 1930s.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, about deductions. He sells barley and when he gets his cheque he finds that £7 per tonne has been deducted. That is a high figure on barley at £155 per tonne. What are they doing with that money? It was originally planned to use the money to reduce stocks. I should like to think that the stocks have been reduced and that something can be done to get rid of these levies. It is a very heavy burden indeed.
I thoroughly agree that the farmers should look to the environment. However, they cannot farm with the environment always in their mind, as a great many people in this country seem to think. Farming is a job. The environment is important but there is a great deal of over-emphasis from some organisations on what we do and what we do not do.
I should like once again to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and his committee on the report. It is a pity that we could not have had it a little earlier.
8.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for the sub-committee's report on this year's farm price review. It is interesting to note that this debate has included a good number of speakers who are not members of the committee. Such is the importance of the subject.
As your Lordships know, a settlement was reached some months ago, but this debate has shown how convenient it is to have an opportunity to consider the committee's report in the light of the outcome. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at once that I cannot trip down the BSE path tonight. I think that he should be ashamed of himself for raising it.
I should like to start by mentioning five of the features of the February European Council decisions which have important implications for the price fixing. First, CAP guarantee expenditure must now be held within a guideline which cannot grow faster than 74 per cent. of the rate of growth in the Community's gross national product. This should limit the real annual growth in guarantee spending to 2 per cent. over the next four years on average compared with 10 per cent. over the past four years. Both the Commission's initial price proposals and the settlement that is reached must respect the guideline.
Secondly, unlike previous agreements, there is no provision for exceptional circumstances, an ill-defined term enabling in practice the guidelines to be breached. Instead, there is only a monetary reserve to provide up to 1 billion ecu in any year if there is a significant fall in the value of the dollar against the ecu, since this has a direct impact on agricultural expenditure. I should add that money will be put into the reserve if there is a significant rise in the dollar.
Thirdly, the stabilisers which are now generally in operation throughout the CAP link full levels of support to specified quantities of production, with cuts in support if those quantities are exceeded. In this way they contribute both to keeping expenditure under control and production in check. Fourthly, the Commission is committed to managing markets for each major commodity so as to avoid an overrun of expenditure. If further Council action is required, for example to strengthen stabilisers, the Council is committed to taking urgent action on a Commission proposal.
Finally, in the past the Community has been able to disguise the true cost of the CAP by allowing intervention stocks to build up, without proper charge to the budget. Now purchased stocks must be fully depreciated in the budget.
I have reminded your Lordships briefly of these major improvements in the management of the CAP, because their recent introduction was the background to the price fixing negotiations. So, let us now examine how the farm prices package that was agreed on 18th July compares with the proposals made by the Commission. The prices part of the package was agreed very much as proposed by the Commission, with support prices being frozen in ecu
702
terms for most commodities. In addition, adjustments were made to the support mechanisms for cereals, oilseeds and beef which will reduce support. This continues the downward pressure on support levels which has been applied for the past five years.
I should like now to say something about agrimonetary issues because they formed a very important part of the committee's report, and indeed of the price fixing. The committee dwelt on the practicality or otherwise of the long-term aim of eliminating all MCAs by 1992, and I can understand its doubts. But I believe that the problems can and must be solved. MCAs have to be abolished if a proper single market is to operate in agriculture. The Commission's objective is therefore one which the Government fully support and will fight for.
The Commission is committed to making a report to the Council on how it is to be done, and the steps by which the monetary gaps between green rates and market rates on which MCAs are based will be abolished. I am glad to say that, thanks to the efforts of my right honourable friend the Minister in another place, both Council and Commission accept that these arrangements must cover all monetary gaps: those of the four non-members of the exchange rate mechanism, including ourselves, as well as those of other member states who are in the ERM.
The noble Lords, Lord Dunleath, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, advocated membership of the ERM. I reply to them merely by repeating the Government's statement that we shall join the ERM when we think that the time is right.
The Commission's specific proposal was limited to a devaluation for Greece, the country with the largest MCAs. We found that unacceptable for two reasons. First, we believed that eliminating monetary gaps and therefore MCAs by 1992 would best be achieved by a gradual and phased demolition of all MCAs, including our own. Secondly, with UK MCAs at the time ranging up to 17.5 per cent. our farmers were disadvantaged in comparison with those in other member states, as your Lordships' report notes, and we could not accept that nothing should be done to redress the balance. We therefore believed that a measured green pound devaluation was necessary, and we pressed for one.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, will appreciate that we were successful. We secured devaluations effective from 1st January 1989 which will reduce UK monetary gaps, and therefore MCAs, by 3.2 points in all sectors except beef where green currency devaluations are to be considered in the review of the regime which has recently begun.
The measure of our success, as recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is that the green pound devaluations agreed are greater than those secured by our main EC competitors, such as France and Ireland, and will improve the competitive position of our farmers. They increase support prices by 2.9 per cent. in most sectors and, were they taken in isolation, would raise farm incomes by £120 million in a full year. They will have only a minimal effect on the food price index.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister what she means by "taken in isolation". Does she mean that the price will be smaller when the other factors are taken into account?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may speak with the noble Lord after the debate, because I shall have to look back to see what I said in order to adjust my mind to his question.
I turn now to some of the commodity points raised in the report and by noble Lords today. First, on cereals, I fully endorse the committee's comments on the cereals incorporation premium. As the House will know, the Government have consistently opposed the idea of such a premium, and the Commission's proposal was not adopted. Moreover, the Council has agreed that any incorporation premium would have to meet certain criteria. In particular, it would have to result in increased use of cereals in animal feed; be based on the most recent possible reference period; be in conformity with GATT; and, last but by no means least, be subject to a monitoring system capable of ensuring its cost-effectiveness.
The views put to the committee on the proposal to halve monthly increments in the intervention prices for cereals and oilseeds were divided, as were the attitudes of member states in the Council. In the event, it was agreed that monthly increments for cereals should be reduced by a quarter and those for oilseeds by a fifth. For cereals, at least, we would have preferred a larger cut, but this was a step in the right direction.
The committee made special mention of the milk quota system which the European Council agreed should be extended for a further three years. As a result of this decision all the main elements of the milk regime remain unchanged by the 1988 price fixing. The effect of the decisions taken under the British presidency in December 1986 have now become fully apparent. Community intervention stocks of skimmed milk powder—as noble Lords have already mentioned—which were over 900,000 tonnes two years ago have now been virtually eliminated, the stocks of butter are dwindling fast—down from 1·3 million tonnes to 210,000 tonnes in two years. But there is still a large surplus of milk products and a very stringent approach will continue to be needed in this sector for the foreseeable future.
The noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke about co-responsibility levies. The milk quota system was not our preferred option, nor were co-responsibility levies which are applied in the milk and cereal sectors. We believe that reducing prices is the right way to bring supply and demand into balance, and that benefits consumers too, which quotas and levies do not. But those were the stabilising measures which the Council as a whole voted for. We shall continue to work for the removal of co-responsibility levies, offset by price cuts.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned the importation of milk in the future and the possibility that doorstep deliveries might be affected, and other such matters. I must agree with him that a lot of
704
thought and work must be done by our people on the subject. However, I hope that it is also possible to look at the future of milk and milk products in a robust way. I further hope that we shall be exporting our fair share.
I turn now to the beef sector. Your Lordships will be aware that we have consistently pressed for making intervention less available and less attractive. We are therefore pleased that the price fixing weakened it further by reducing the price at which beef is bought in. Further action is justified but this needs to be considered as part of the wide-ranging reform of the regime on which negotiations, as I have said, are just beginning.
We welcome the Commission's proposals on intervention which would build on progress already made by further limiting its scope and cost. As to premium payments for farmers, we are studying the proposals carefully. If the system is to change, we shall aim to ensure that such changes are for the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked about the effect of the recent changes to the beef intervention arrangements. It is too soon to determine how effective those changes will be, but I am pleased to be able to say that beef intervention stock levels have decreased since July from nearly 700,000 tonnes to 620,000 tonnes.
Your Lordships have made it clear that you want to know how this year's final price settlement measures up to the new rules on budget discipline and to be satisfied—I was pleased with this word in the report—that there was no fudge. To begin with, the package was estimated to produce a small saving against the 1988 budget of 24 mecu, but, mainly due to green rate devaluations, there will be an additional cost of 289 mecu in 1989. The additional cost in 1989 had to be covered to stay within the financial framework and the Commission faced up to its responsibilities, as my right honourable friend the Minister urged it to do. As a result, offsetting management savings, mainly on skimmed milk subsidies, enabled the Commission to cover the extra costs and indeed to reduce its budget estimate by 20 mecu for 1989.
Since the price fixing, due to improved world market prices and management action to restrain spending on a number of commodities, reduced levels of expenditure have resulted in the outturn for 1988 being estimated to be 1 billion ecu below the guideline. For 1989 the Commission has brought forward a rectifying letter to the 1989 budget which, if adopted, would give a provision for CAP guarantee spending about 1.8 billion ecu below the guideline in 1989.
The budgetary picture, at least in the short term, therefore appears satisfactory. However, the Commission knows as well as anyone that it should not use temporary improvements in the world market prices, for example those caused by the US drought, as a justification for reducing the pressure on the CAP. To do so now would mean that harder decisions would have to be taken in future if, or when, world prices decline, since budget discipline would

705
then bite all the harder. Such a switchback approach makes no sense. We need to hold firmly to the course we have set.
I should like to mention how stabilisers are working. Since the price fixing, the Commission has made known its harvest estimates for a number of the commodities subject to stabilisers. For rapeseed, a cut of 7.65 per cent. in the target price has been applied. This is less than the 10 per cent. cut applied last year but reflects the fact that, as a result of reduced acreage and lower yields, estimated EC10 production of rapeseed has fallen this year compared to last year by about 10 per cent. This is a welcome sign that stabilisers are having an effect in this sector. For sunflower seed a cut of 19.8 per cent. in the target price has been applied, nearly double last year's reduction, and for soya a cut of over 10 per cent. has been applied.
In the case of peas and beans, the stabiliser is operating this year for the first time and is already making its presence felt. Production estimates were about 20 per cent. above the level of the maximum guaranteed quantity, giving rise to support price cuts of about 10 per cent.
Although, as my noble friend Lord Middleton is aware, the Commission has not yet decided its harvest estimates for cereals, the 1988 Community harvest will probably be somewhat below 165 million tonnes, though it is expected to be sufficient to trigger the stabiliser which gives a 3 per cent. price cut next year; but there may be a small repayment of the additional 3 per cent. co-responsibility levy.
Time is going by. I shall write to the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carter, about extensification and the reduction in farm incomes, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.
I was moved by the words of the noble Lords, Lord Middleton, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Northhourne, about the beauty of the countryside and the welfare of farmers. The Government are well seized of the importance of both. Further, the Government are heartened by the progress which has been made in the Community's approach to the management of agricultrual policy.
My right honourable friend the Minister in another place will continue to pursue our policies which, as I have shown, are bearing fruit and which we firmly believe are in the best interests of the EC, of our country, of thriving rural economies and therefore of the farmers themselves.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I should like to thank all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debate and for the quality of their contributions. I should especially like to thank the Minister for replying to the debate, particularly in the circumstances which she was kind enough to mention to me.
If the report has merit—and some say it has—it is in no small measure due to the quality of Sub-Committee D. On this occasion I should also mentioned the fine service we had from our specialist adviser, Mr. Simon Harris.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Metropolitan Police and the Public
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they propose to do to establish better relations between the public and the Metropolitan Police.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, last July when I tabled the Motion I did not know that the Metropolitan Police had commissioned a report six months previously, nor did I know that on the cover of the Sunday Telegraph colour supplement in August this year there would be an identikit picture of a police constable with the caption:
"Wanted, a new face for the Force".
The colour section described the public relations exercise which the Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, had initiated. That to me is encouraging. Sir Peter must realise the somewhat tarnished reputation which the Metropolitan Police have which could and should be improved without much difficulty.
A typical example is of a man who enters a police station. He waits for half an hour before anyone can see him. Finally, the sergeant realises that he is a researcher for the public relations company. He is then told how sorry the sergeant is but he (the sergeant) mistook him for a member of the public. The report commissioned six months ago basically said that the Metropolitan Police was riddled with deep internal divisions; many officers fell helpless and misunderstood; many police stations were run down; notices being stuck up at random—a type of Sellotape culture; that there were inadequate internal communications; there was no common sense of purpose; and that some officers' attitudes to the public were insensitive and thoughtless.
I should like to state categorically that any criticisms I may make of the Metropolitan Police do not refer to any of the many police officers in the Palace of Westminster.
The police and the public have four main sources of contact. The first is that of the victims of crime. It appears that the current attitude prevalent in the Metropolitan Police, if the crime is difficult to solve and only minor, is: "Report the details and forget about it. It is not economically viable to spend time on such crimes". That is where public confidence in the police could be greatly enhanced even though the chance of recovering stolen goods or the apprehension of offenders is remote. Unfortunately, after a burglary clues as to the identity of the offenders are unlikely or rarely to be found. Long ago, police officers made the victims feel that they cared for them and that they would try to catch the offenders. Today, the attitude is, "There is nothing that we can do. Ring us up with a list of the stolen goods, and then tell your insurance company". The victims are left feeling that the police do not care; the police are no good; and the victims will not inform the police if they witness unlawful happenings.
About a fortnight ago the Audit Commission published a scathing report that there were 60,000 cases of housebreaking, car theft and cheque fraud

707
which went unsolved each year because police officers either did not bother to collect fingerprints or, if they did, they mismanaged them.
The other point that came up immediately after this, about four days later, was that Saatchi and Saatchi had been asked to handle the advertising. Their slogan was, "Give the Long Arm of the Law a Hand". The campaign appealed to the public to be the eyes and ears of the police particularly during November. My Lords, it should not just be in November, it should be the whole time.
It is fair to say however that this attitude may possibly have been engendered by the obsession of senior officers with saving money at all costs, given the current budgetary restrictions. However, it is an area in which a little less penny pinching—that is, police officers at least going through the motions of trying to help—could engender a feeling of confidence in the police.
Major offences such as murder, rape, etc., are on the whole well covered, and I think that confidence in the police is good because of that. To sum up on that point: a little more time spent helping victims pays millions in police-public relations and thereby eventually saves a lot of money.
The second major point that comes up with the public is traffic offenders and parking offences. Those are nearly always sticky situations. Traffic offences, that is, speeding etc., cause accidents. Accidents hurt people and cost money. The traffic police are fairly unsung heroes when dealing with accidents and they are hated by potential accident-makers—people speeding, bad drivers and so on.
The problem is that there are good drivers and bad drivers; but the majority are bad and the police tend to treat all drivers as bad. If a policeman is following a driver who is speeding, how does the policeman know whether the driver exceeding the speed limit is good or bad? He does not, so he assumes the worst. It is only when one has to clean up ghastly accidents that one sees the danger and the damage caused by bad drivers.
Nevertheless, tact and good humour should be drummed into the heads of the traffic police. I am not saying that there are not some policemen who follow this philosophy, because there are. A great deal of harm is done to police-public relations by rude, overbearing and frequently tired, over-stressed police officers. The reason behind their being rude and overbearing is that it is often forgotten that policemen are human beings as well. The trouble is that sometimes the policemen themselves forget that fact.
If parking is unrestricted, it clogs up the streets, drivers become frustrated and angry, they drive badly and accidents happen. It is an almost insoluble problem. There must be parking restrictions, but privatising clamping was a silly, stupid and ill-thought-out idea, although it was done to economise on police manpower so that police officers could perform more important duties. What is the point of clamping a car parked at a meter? This happens frequently and the meter is then no use to any other vehicle. Why not make the penalty for overstaying
708
the time on a meter stiffer, say, whatever you like for one hour and thereafter £100 per hour. Removing cars which are causing a blockage is far better than clamping them.
My noble friend knows about my experience. Briefly, my car was clamped outside my flat within five minutes of me parking the car there while I was loading my luggage. When the adrenealin had settled down, I wrote to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and to Sir Peter Imbert, the Commissioner. After much correspondence, the fixed penalty notice and the clamping fine were refunded. I had not asked for that to happen. All I was doing was trying to crusade. Being a member of Parliament, I thought I might be able to help some other luckless indiscriminately clamped members of the public who do not know how to look after themselves. They do not know what action to take when their vehicles have been indiscriminately clamped.
I think it is unfortunate that clamping is now done by private contractors, although I agree it is under the supervision of a police officer. With all respect to the Metropolitan Police, there are always a few bad apples in every barrel, and no matter how well-trained police officers are, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote to me in his letter of 7th March, human nature being what it is, there must be doubts in the public's mind that corruption cannot be entirely ruled out. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, had the same problem not long ago. Today I heard that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the leader of the SLD, had his car stolen by the police, when he had gone away for the weekend.
Finally, on clamping, on the news on BBC-1 on 12th July, a very senior police officer stated that if Her Majesty the Queen parked her car illegally, "We'd have it". For a servant of the Crown to use Her Majesty to make a point like that in my opinion is the ultimate in bad taste and shows the arrogance which exists in parts of the clamping department of the Metropolitan Police.
I do not know why we have all this fuss about breath tests. The police already have the power to use the breathalyser on any driver, they can stop any vehicle they like, when they like, if they feel like it. However, I sincerely hope that we are not beginning to see the embryo or birth of a police state. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary must take very great care to supervise this in order to protect the liberty and rights of the people.
The third point concerns lost property, accidents, etc. Generally when the public ask for police assistance in dealing with lost property, street accidents and so on, a great deal of police-public relations points could be built up. However, again money counts here. Police officers do what they can on a limited budget, but they often appear offhand and uncaring. No doubt the Commissioner recognises this and I am sure that he tries to combat the problem. It is an area where, as with all relationships, tact and good humour count for millions of pounds of goodwill and, if applied rigorously, would help a great deal.
However, what does incredible harm is the nauseating scene watched by Mr. Roald Dahl and his

709
wife and reported in the papers on 16th September of Mr. Barton, when handcuffed, being very badly beaten up by a group of five police officers and then thrown semi-conscious into the back of a van. He was charged on 15th September with two charges, both of which were dismissed. It is to be hoped that severe disciplinary action was taken against those five police officers.
The last point concerns criminals. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has caused great problems for the police. The bureaucracy involved in processing offenders is now so great that many police officers are spending so much time dealing with paper work that there is no time left to do their proper job—that is, serving the public.
To sum up, in 1829 Sir Richard Mayne, the first Commissioner, wrote these immortal words:
"The primary objects of an efficient police are the protection of life and property, the prevention of crime, and the apprehension of offenders when a crime has been committed. To these ends, all the efforts of an efficient police, or … (peace officers) should be directed".
Every police officer has to learn that quotation by heart at the beginning of his service.
However, I wonder, 159 years later, whether that quotation has sometimes been forgotten in the insane, mad rush by senior police officers to obtain as much modern technology for their forces, to save as much of the taxpayers' money as possible—an admirable quality with which I do not disagree—and thus ensure their own financial future. By this I mean that the current attitude appears to be, "If I save a lot of money, I will get the next rank. If I invent a new way of monitoring costs, I will be promoted". Unfortunately, this results in penny-pinching economies while thousands of pounds are spent in finding ways of making more penny-pinching economies.
We now have violence not only in London but in rural areas and country towns. What I am saying now applies not only to the Metropolitan Police but throughout our whole country. Highly trained and expensively trained police officers out on the beat serve not only as a deterrent to crime but also boost morale and relationships with the public. It is pointless having these officers doing clerical work. Therefore could not many more civilians be given the jobs of doing that clerical work? Only the other day the Home Secretary in another place said that police numbers stood at a record level. I am sure he is right. I would not dream of arguing with him. They may be at a record level, but are they in the right place? They should be outside and not indoors. It may well be that the Police Federation would not like it, because they are a kind of trade union, but the Police Federation does not run the police force.
In the beginning I mentioned tired and overstressed police officers. The Metropolitan Police have finally recognised that this phenomenon occurs. They are, however, to a degree too wrapped up in a belief of their own self-importance to pay much more than lip service to that. However, there is a wind of change; things are improving. That is one benefit of younger officers reaching high ranks quickly so they can remember what it was like when they were Bobbies on the beat. There are advantages of having
710
an accelerated promotion scheme as there as disadvantages. After having given that much thought, I do not know which system is better.
I was very intrigued at Question Time today in your Lordships' House to hear the Question of my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on crime prevention. It was interesting to see how many noble Lords contributed to that Question and how few speakers there are on the police debate this evening.
To conclude, the police are often in an extremely difficult position, especially in respect of riots, inner city deprivation and other matters. But we must look at both sides of the coin. The British people cannot ignore the problems facing our society, and expect the police to pick up the pieces. The Government, the social services, the schools and, above all, the public have control over their own destiny. It is up to both the public and the police to put their houses in order.
8.51 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, on introducing this debate. I believe it is very important that such a subject should he aired. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for restricting the debate to the Metropolitan Police, and not extending it to all police forces. I say that advisedly because the Hampshire constabulary operates in the area where I live. Every two years in my area the Farnborough air show occurs. I live only a matter of yards from a main road on which there is a turnoff leading to Farnborough.
As one would expect, during the air show the traffic builds up for miles on both sides. This year something very interesting happened. Motorists, many with young children in the back of their cars, had been sitting in a traffic jam for a very long time. But when they reached the turnoff they were all smiling and the kids were laughing like crazy. Some of our police, although in uniform, were dressed as Noddy men, some had funny faces, some had funny hats and some had great big plastic hands. Even we locals were laughing. I suggest that is a superb public relations exercise. It showed how to turn the public's frustration into amusement.
I believe that if we are to discuss how to improve relationships between the Metropolitan Police and the general public, we must first discuss what is wrong with that relationship today. Like the noble Earl, I wish to say that the remarks I am about to make have nothing, in any shape or form, to do with police officers in the Palace of Westminster, nor do they have anything to do, in any shape or form, with officers of the drug squad, the anti-terrorist squad and those officers who face criminals who are sometimes armed and those who face large, unruly crowds.
In the list of complaints there is the criticism that the police do not have enough manpower. As a result of that it was announced, as the noble Earl mentioned, that the police could no longer deal with petty crime such as mugging, housebreaking, graffiti, and other crimes such as snatching old ladies' handbags. Those crimes may be petty to the Metropolitan Police, but to the general public who suffer from them they are far from petty. That, in itself, engenders bad feeling.

711
We also have "no go" areas. The police deny that "no go" areas exist. Nevertheless we see them all the time on television and we read about them in the newspapers. We see and read of the police being confronted by people who may not be armed with guns but who are sometimes armed with bottles and staves. Unfortunately many of those confrontations occur in areas with large ethnic minorities. If a policeman arrests someone, before he knows it a crowd gathers and that person is pulled away from the policeman. One can then read the report of such an incident in the newspapers. At the end of the report it will state that no arrests were made. Members of the general public say, "Fine, but if I did something like that you can bet your life that there would be arrests". In other words the public feel there is one law for them—the basically law-abiding citizens—and another law, or lack of law, for others. That, again, is not a very good situation.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act sets out guidelines. If memory serves me right, the guidelines stated that police officers were not to stop people because of their race, colour, religion, mode of dress or their hairstyles. Those guidelines are not adhered to. I have a friend who is a punk. One can tell that because his hair is still a slightly different colour to that of normal hair. He is perpetually being stopped by the police. My friend is well educated, intelligent and polite. He happens to be a talented musician and also a composer of lyrics. He is a thoroughly nice boy, but he is a punk. Therefore, it appears that in the eyes of the police he goes in for mugging old ladies. The terrible thing about this is that, by their very nature, genuine punks are non-violent.
Unfortunately that feeling about punks carries over from the police to the public. I have permission to recount a story in that connection. A short time ago my mother-in-law went to a bus stop to catch a Green Line bus. At the bus stop were three punks. A little way away stood a respectable looking gentleman. My mother-in-law went and stood over by the respectable looking gentleman hoping that if there were trouble from the punks that gentleman was there and he would protect her. So, what happened? The respectable looking gentleman started making obscene suggestions to her, whereupon the three punks came over and said, "Lady, is this man annoying you? If he is, we shall look after you". The respectable looking gentleman, who was obviously neither respectable nor a gentleman, decided that discretion was the better part of valour and left. I feel sure now that in future my mother-in-law will no longer be afraid of punks.
If the police do not like punks, it appears that they do not like young lads with posh accents either. I heard the following story from a very respectable source, although I cannot actually bear it out. One summer evening in Trafalgar Square four or five young lads were sitting on the lions and enjoying themselves. A police van drew up, some police leapt out, grabbed the boys and threw them into the van. The van moved off. In the van one of the boys politely asked one of the more aggressive police officers for his number. The reply was, "All you will get is my fist in your face unless you shut up".
712
The boys were taken to a police station, arrested and duly appeared in court. The police evidence was that the boys had been running through the crowd, knocking into people and using foul language. A man stood up at the back of the court and asked for permission to give evidence on the boys' behalf. He was a solicitor from Devon who had been in Trafalgar Square on that night and had seen what happened. He was sufficiently concerned by the treatment of those boys to find out to which police station they had been taken, what the charge was and where they would appear in court. He travelled all the way from Devon to give his evidence. The solicitor so obviously had nothing to gain that the magistrates believed him and the boys were found not guilty.
That being the case it must follow that if the boys were not guilty the police in their evidence were lying. When one lies under oath the term is perjury. Why therefore were those police officers not charged with perjury? That does not happen only occasionally. Time and time again, almost as a matter of course, too many police officers automatically give perjured evidence.
There is another point that I should like to make. I know that the sus laws no longer exist but one will see police officers stopping young lads, normally coloured. Occasionally one sees them being pushed against a wall or something like that. If one goes and asks what is going on one is liable to be arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty. If one is not arrested the chances are one will be told to buzz off and mind one's own business. If one ends up in the police station and one happens to be a respectable, professional person such as a doctor or solicitor one will probably be all right. Otherwise, no. Noble Lords, may not believe me and if the House were better attended I should be tempted to suggest that they try it and see for themselves what happens. I should of course not suggest that to the Minister, first, because he is a Minister of the Crown, and, secondly, because he looks far too respectable and imposing for any police constable to have the temerity to try to arrest him or to tell him to buzz off. During the miners' strike we all know that violence was committed by both sides. That is very regrettable. However, I have heard too many stories for it not to be true that many of the county police forces were sickened by the gratuitous violence offered by the Metropolitan Police.
It may appear that I am anti-Metropolitan Police, I am not, I am only anti some of its members. That may be a very small minority but it is that minority which sours the relationship between the police and the general public.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I believe that we need more police officers on the beat, fewer uniformed officers with their bottoms on seats. I read with great interest the fact that civilians are to take over more desk jobs. I believe that to be a good idea.
I believe also that we must have a new system for investigating complaints against the police. If members of the public have made a complaint against a police officer or police officers how can they have confidence in the procedure when that complaint is investigated by other police officers? Certainly the

713
officers may be from another police force but that does not alter the fact that it is the police who investigate a complaint against the police. I suggest that we should set up a new system under which one or perhaps two police officers would advise on police procedures while the complaint was investigated by intelligent but impartial people. I would therefore not recommend that I take part in that procedure because I am obviously not impartial.
I accept, as everyone does, that the days of dear old Dixon of Dock Green have gone forever, He was a lovable soul—if he existed—he was everyone's friend and everyone trusted him. He represented not only the law but also justice. That day unfortunately has gone. However, I suggest that when the police are trained they should not be churned out merely as police officers but somewhere along the line they should be taught that they must remember that when they put on their uniforms they are servants of the public and therefore they should not act as petty dictators.
In conclusion, I may have gone on a bit about the police roughing-up people and about the police perjuring themselves, but, regrettably, I did so because I personally have suffered from police perjury and I have been roughed-up by the police.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House is not particularly full at the moment. One wishes that a debate on the Metropolitan Police—who are perhaps the eyes and teeth of society—had attracted the same audience as a debate on charges in relation to eyes and teeth. It is a subject which is so important that it deserves to have more Members of your Lordships' House present for the debate which the noble Earl has initiated. We are all deeply grateful to him for having done so.
It is an important subject. It is one that worries the public and it is one that worries Parliament. The complaints that come forward in regard to the attitude of the general community to the police force and of the police force to the general community in the metropolitan area are very real complaints. There are special sections of the community whose relationship with the police is not as good as it should be.
In saying that I should like to pay a perfectly sincere tribute to the majority of the members of the Metropolitan Police. They do a magnificent job, very often with great courage and with great dedication to the traditions of the force, which are very fine indeed. We are talking tonight, I hope, about a very distinct minority but it is right that we should concentrate on them without forgetting the majority who do such a good job.
When we talk about the general relationship between the community and the police, I believe that it is right that we should reflect, as most people who are of advancing years do, on how young many members of the police force look. I can remember hearing that from my father when I was a youngster. I have now reached the age when the members of the police force look extremely young to me. But many of them are indeed young, and one of the things one
714
does notice—and this is something one wishes the Metropolitan Police would take rather more seriously than they do and something which should be accentuated in their training—is a touch of arrogance in their attitude to the community at large which is obviously not helping the community's relationship with the police.
Very often, even after a car accident, there is an attitude which is not that of a servant of the public doing his duty by investigating whether a crime has been committed in regard to careless driving, or whatever it may be. Sometimes there is almost annoyance at the time being wasted on having to take particulars of an accident which has occurred on the road. It is this undertone of arrogance and of an attitude which I will not call bullying but which certainly is too aggressive at times that hurts many members of the public and removes that respect for the police force which ought to exist. Again I emphasise that I am talking about a minority and not the majority, but how often is a community or a profession judged by the minority which does not live up to its traditions instead of by the majority which does.
Having said that, I want to defend many members of the police force from the criticisms that are made. Some were made tonight though with great moderation by the noble Earl. I do not Ihink that the background is always understood. For example, the noble Earl mentioned that members of the public are very often disappointed (which is an understatement) when what they see as important burglaries are not in fact taken up by the police. Sometimes days go by after the report is made before they sec a police officer.
I wonder how many of your Lordships realise that in fact there is now a points system in operation in regard to visiting houses and taking up burglary investigations. There never was before: that was left to the local policeman, who used to try to visit as many places as he could after reports of burglaries had been made. One knows that there may have to be a system of priorities, but the system of priorities resulting from this points system means that many people, and particularly many old people—in whom the very trespass into their private property creates fear, while the loss of items with sentimental associations though perhaps not very great monetary worth, creates much distress—will be hurt. The points system cannot be very justly administered and. though it is supposed to save a lot of money because otherwise petty crimes would be investigated, it is obviously something that ought to be looked at.
Talking about the general community and having mentioned the elderly, I wonder how many people realise what a change has taken place. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spoke in terms of great fondness for police images of the past. He mentioned the creation of a noble colleague of ours on the television screen. It used to be a habit when an elderly person complained to the local police that somehow or other he was unable to enter his premises, whether because of the carelessness of someone else or because of his own admitted carelessness, a policeman used to come along and do a wonderful social and public relations job. With a care that was exercised to the greatest

715
extent possible, the smallest window which would allow a policemen to enter was broken. The policeman used to go inside and would then do the best he could to clear up the glass. Then he would sit there for just a little while and sip the cup of tea which was given to him in gratitude for his help by the old person concerned.
Do your Lordships know what is the practice now? The practice now, which I have no doubt saves a great deal of money, is that the policeman gives the number of a locksmith. What an opportunity to create goodwill that old exercise was. Now, however, we are operating on a system of efficiency and money saving instead of the old traditions of friendship of the police for all law-abiding citizens and, indeed, a tolerance for those who break the law—it is for the courts to punish them, not the police. The duty of the police is to arrest.
I mention now specific groups in the community, taking first youth. It is a great shame but perfectly true that the relationship between police and youth is not what it was. This afternoon at Question Time, while it is true that there were not many, the supplementaries that were asked were answered with great courtesy by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I was grateful to him for that, as were other noble Lords. One fact that emerges from the wretched statistics that the House has to consider from time to time is the still high percentage among those convicted of crime, especially those convicted of violent crime, of young people below the age of 20 and in their early 20s. I know that it gives no pleasure to the Minister to have to deal with those questions in debates on the subject.
Some projects the police favour. There is a South London auto project for youngsters convicted of driving away cars without the owner's consent and of stealing cars. They show that they have a great fondness for cars even if it leads them into some criminality. They go on this course in South London, and the police help the course. The youngsters are so keen on it that, if they commit an offence after having been admitted to the project, the biggest punishment is to have their course terminated. I know that some innocent law-abiding youngsters in South London have asked why there is a project only for those who are criminals and who have committed crimes, and why such a project is not assisted by the police for all young people wishing to join it. That would be an extension of a socially beneficial project. It could easily bring the police into contact with young people.
Time goes on. I wish to deal briefly with another section of the community, the ethnic minorities. This is a perturbing subject. I was talking this afternoon to a police officer of some seniority in the force in terms of years of service, if not of rank. He told me the most pathetic tale. He is very fond of football, and he knew a coloured lad who was very good at football. The police officer said to the lad, "I know some people who run a very important football club. I'd like you to come along with me. I'll introduce you to the people concerned in the club because I think they'd give you a chance". The lad immediately said, "No
716
thank you". Some few days later he came up to the police officer and said, "I want you to know why I said no thank you. I'd lose all credibility and quite a lot of friendship in the street in which I live if I had come along with you to that football club, and I would have been indebted to you for introducing me to it".
How tragic that that should be the relationship. It is not easy to answer. It is not easy to see the problems in the minds of ethnic minorities when youngsters are on street corners not because they want to be but because they cannot get jobs and because they suffer many social disadvantages.
I wish that I could give a solution to the problem that is being debated. Something has to be done. Matters are improving through community relations, councils, and so on, but something has to be done to make the ethnic minorities in this country, and especially in the metropolis, realise that the police are there to defend them and not to attack them. The police are there to encourage them to be good citizens of this country, as so many of them are. The Metropolitan Police have not yet been able to deal satisfactorily with that relationship. The coloured community has not yet been able to deal satisfactorily with it. We have not been able to deal satisfactorily with it. It is one of the grave problems of the Metropolitan Police and their relationship with the community at large.
9.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimberley for introducing this debate this evening. He has spoken from experience and conviction. He made a fairly condemnatory speech but it is right that we should address our minds to the matters he raised. I was glad that he had put this Motion down because I believe that the public relations of the police are of vital importance. If we want to live—as we all do—in a society where peace and contentment and law and order exist, the relationships between police and the public are of paramount importance. That is why I believe that my noble friend's debate is of such importance.
If one looks at the general scenario, the police are the ones who have to keep the peace. They are the ones whom society expects to administer the law. But of course they cannot do it alone. The police cannot change society. They are, after all, only people who are drawn from society and who are dressed up in blue. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, when they are dressed up in uniform they are the servants of the public. However, if society determines to accept a shift in what is acceptable behaviour, we cannot expect the police to reverse it. That is not their job.
It is alarming to realise that, by the age of 28, one in three males has been convicted of one of the more serious criminal offences. It is a terrifying statistic but it is a reflection on society.
The first thing I would say to my noble friend Lord Kimberley is this. It is up to the police and the public together to put their house in order. If we want a decent society in which to live, it is up to all of us, and especially the leaders of society, to try to bring that

717
about. By leaders I do not mean just the police or politicians, but church leaders, doctors, professionals, leaders of the community, teachers and, above all, parents. It needs a conscious effort by everyone if we are to try to return to a more reasonable and ordered society. It cannot be left to the police alone.
There can be no doubt that the social context in which the police work has changed a great deal. Society has changed. It has become more complex and more violent. Authority is no longer accepted unquestioningly. That has not made the task of the police easier, in particular as the demands that we make upon the police have become more varied, more intricate and more complex. However, if the context in which policing takes place has changed, the philosophy of policing in Britain remains the same. The police-community relations is the modern jargon for an old concept. The concept that the police are the citizen in uniform serving the community of which he or she is a part is as old as the Metropolitan Police.
It remains true, as it has always been, that the police cannot do their job of maintaining the peace and tackling crime effectively if they cannot have the support and confidence of the public whom they serve, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, stated. Of course the police never have had and never will have the support of the whole community. What is important is that the majority of people in London should feel that the Metropolitan Police are their friends, that they act in their interests and that they can rely on police officers to behave, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley said, with courtesy, with impartiality, with restraint and with bravery in all that they do. I believe that this is vital. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimberley. An abrupt riposte by one police officer, for example to a motorist, can alienate that person not only against that officer but against the police as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, used the word "arrogance". Arrogance which may momentarily have been portrayed can be construed as representative of the attitude of the police as a whole. If arrogance is used by one person, that can do a great deal of damage to police-public relationships. Arrogance when used can end up by turning against the police the very person who should be a friend of the police, whose friendship and co-operation the police need in fighting crime. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that a majority of the police were good. I am glad he said that because it is true. He also said that there is a minority who are not. I believe my noble friend Lord Kimberley said that there were rotten apples in every barrel. That is inevitable. But one must recognise what is wrong and bad and should not necessarily harp on that and think that it is indicative of the whole, because it is not.
My noble friend referred to traffic offences. Some 46 per cent. of all male drivers have at one time or another been questioned by police in connection with traffic offences. That is an amazing statistic. One can realise how vital it is, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley said, that the attitude of the police towards the motorist, even under provocation, should be exemplary.
718
My noble friend spoke with feeling on traffic matters. I could take issue with him on one or two specific points. He said that the contracting out of wheel-clamping had been a mistake. By contracting out the physical work which is associated with wheel-clamping and removal operations, the Metropolitan Police have increased their capacity to enforce the law, while at the same time they have kept their costs down. I believe that is a reasonable thing to have done.
The effect of these operations is being carefully monitored by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The result of contracting out is that illegal parking has fallen substantially and the use of off-street car parks has increased. So far from blockages increasing, traffic flows have in fact inmproved. The contractors work under the direct supervision of a police officer at all times. If my noble friend has any specific grounds for believing that these operations are corruptly conducted I hope that he will make them known to the commissioner or to me. If he does not do that it is quite wrong to cast general aspersions on the integrity of those who do this work simply on the grounds of what I think he described as human nature being what it is.
My noble friend asserted that the police have power to use a breathalyser at random on any driver. That is not the case. The police have power to stop any vehicle, but they may require a breath test only where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the driver has consumed alcohol, has been involved in an accident or committed a moving traffic offence. Where my noble friend and I are at one is in expecting the highest standards of behaviour from police officers in all their dealings with the public. But courtesy, impartiality and restraint are not always easy to maintain in the face of hostility or even, on occasions, physical attack.
We can be sure of hearing about plenty of occasions when the Metropolitan Police fail to maintain those standards. However, we hear little of the immense provocation to which they are at times subjected and which can lead to such lapses. The public's perception and acceptance of the police can change like litmus paper as the result of one wrong move. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that certain crimes were not properly investigated by the Metropolitan Police. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the commissioner had introduced a system of crime screening in order to help—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I said that it was a points scheme.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is so. There is a system by which it is decided which cause should have the greatest priorities. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that no crime is screened out simply because it is considered to be trivial. All serious crimes, especially crimes of violence, are fully investigated. The commissioner is well aware of the need to ensure that members of the public are not left with the impression that their crime has been ignored, even in cases where a full-scale investigation would stand no chance of success.

719
We should never underestimate the pressures which arc faced by the police in London. Unlike the Armed Services the police do not face a physically identifiable enemy; they face a series of shifting problems. The man who is interrogated for a crime one day may be seeking help from the police to find a lost child the next day. The man who is offensive to the police for interrogating him is the first to expect them to be available when events turn against him. The criminal can use everything in the book against the police, including knives, guns, and crowbars. Yet the police are unarmed and frequently unprotected. They can also be frightened. As my noble friend said, they arc only human beings but they are always expected to act with restraint. If they do not do so the media set about them and quite right too. We expect and we must have the highest standards from the police and failure to do so points us towards a police state, as stated by my noble friend Lord Kimberley. Gilbert and Sullivan said that the policeman's lot is not a happy one, and they were correct.
It is entirely right and proper that complaints against the police should be thoroughly investigated. By way of example my noble friend Lord Kimberley raised the recent press reports of an incident involving Mr. Earl Barton which was witnessed by Mr. Roald Dahl, the author. I cannot comment on the case but I understand that the Police Complaints Authority is at present supervising an investigation into a complaint made by Mr. Barton against the police officers who arrested him.
It is not only the lout and the mob who impose such strains on the police. Members of the public, whether they are being arrested for a crime or seeking police help, are often unreasonble, rude and violent. It is horrifying to realise that last year 4,534 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted in London alone.
The most law-abiding citizen can feel resentful or apprehensive when approached by a police officer. As a result he often responds to the officer in a way which is less than friendly. I found it myself when recently my local police officer, whom I know well, approached me and I immediately asked, "What have I done wrong? Have I parked my car in the wrong place?" In fact he had come to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invited. What a terrible reaction that was—a Pavlovian reaction—to a friend. I felt ashamed. But if it is the reaction of one who is as privileged as I am to be involved with the police, it is not surprising if the policeman anticipates a similar or possibly worse reaction when meeting a hostile group of people. The police officer himself reacts in advance accordingly.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley referred to the recent Wolff Olins report. That report said that:
"The attitudes of the Met towards the world in which it works can best be described as wary. Many policemen and women feel beleaguered and misunderstood."
It is therefore even more surprising—and something which we need to be reminded of more often—that officers of the Metropolitan Police generally do a superb job.
720
In a survey of public attitudes earlier this year, only 11 per cent. of Londoners thought that the Metropolitan Police did a poor job. Sixty-nine per cent. had a good image of the police in London. The Wolff Olins report found that the Metropolitan Police were an organisation which enjoyed widespread public support. They have internationally renowned centres of excellence, and they provide an increasing police presence on the streets.
But of course the Metropolitan Police are not faultless. There are legitimate concerns about certain areas of the Met's work. The same report said that there was a lack of a common sense of purpose; that there were internal divisions particularly between the police and civil staff; that there was a need for further improvement in management and training; and that the stresses of policing in London create a wariness among officers which is sometimes reflected in an insensitive and thoughtless attitude to the public.
Needless to say, some sections of the press have siezed upon these problems as evidence of a crisis—and the commissioner realised that this danger existed when he decided to publish the Wolff Olins findings. But he considered that the public should have a chance to comment upon the problems. I believe that that was a brave decision, and one which is symptomatic of the openness of the Metropolitan Police today.
The commissioner's aim is to ensure that the Metropolitan Police provide a courteous, fair and effective service to all Londoners. It needs to be representative of the public which they serve. And it needs to be responsive to the needs of the public which they serve. The Metropolitan Police are doing much to bring that about.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to ethnic minorities. The recruitment of more ethnic minority police officers is essential if we are to maintain good relations between the police and the public. We are a multi-racial society, and it is important that the police should represent—and be seen to represent—the community as a whole. The ethnic minority communities in London, just as much as anyone else, need to feel that the Metropolitan Police are their police force. The communities need to look up to them, to respect, to trust and to be part of them. The minority communities must know that the police will protect their interests in the same impartial way as they protect the interests of the majority.
The commissioner shares that view. The Metropolitan Police have been working hard over a number of years in order to try and increase the number of ethnic minority police officers—and they are having some success.
In 1981, at the time of the Brixton disorders, there were 138 minority officers in the Metropolitan Police. That is a pathetically small amount. Nearly as many—114—were recruited last year alone. About 10 per cent. of the strength of the Metropolitan Police special constabulary now consists of ethnic minority officers. That is good. But I am bound to say that it is not good enough.

721
But however hard the Met try to increase their ethnic recruiting—and they have tried—you cannot force people to join. The Met will only achieve a substantial increase in the number of black and Asian officers with the active support of the minority communities themselves. Those communities should feel a pride in having their members become part of the police force. They should not make those who join the police force feel ostracised or feel that, by joining the police force, they have not been loyal to their own communities. It is up to the leaders of the ethnic communities to encourage their members to join. It is up to the police at all levels to welcome them.
I therefore make a special plea to the people of ethnic minority origin. It is this. The police are there to serve the whole community. Members of the ethnic minorities are wanted in the police service. The interests of their communities will be the better served if their communities are represented in the police force. The Metropolitan Police are also working hard to ensure that they remain responsive to the changing needs and to the priorities of the complex community which they serve.
In order to respond to the needs and to the concerns of the community, police officers need to know what those concerns are. Consultation between the police and the public is, therefore, an established part of the way in which the Metropolitan Police operate. In 1981 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, recommended, after the disorders in Brixton, that arrangements should be made for obtaining the views of the community about the policing of their area through local consultative groups. Consultative groups now exist in every London borough and they are providing an important channel of communication between the police and the public.
This is complemented by the more informal but nevertheless vital liaison which the police maintain with schools and with a wide variety of community and voluntary organisations and statutory agencies throughout London. Where there are special needs, the Met try to meet them. The new strategies for combating racial incidents and for responding to the victims of domestic violence are examples of this.
Lay visiting schemes are another way in which the police respond to the public's concerns. There are now 32 schemes in operation in London and they are making, in the inner city areas in particular, a substantial contribution to improving relations between the police and the local community.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I also fully support the commissioner's strategy of working closely with the public to tackle crime. Over 9,000 neighbourhood watch schemes have now been set up in London, together with 30 crime prevention panels. I think that it is, as a result, more than coincidence that burglaries of homes in the Metropolitan Police district fell by 5 per cent. in 1987 and that total crime was down by 4 per cent.
722
Drugs are increasingly becoming an immensely worrying part of society. The dependence on them increases crime in order that those who use drugs should have the funds with which to purchase them.
The police are correct to do all that they can to curtail this wicked trade. But to raid a club which is suspected of dealing in drugs does not exactly endear the police to its members. The feeling that "authority" has burst into a club alienates the customers; but it is an essential part of police work in order to protect society. That is yet another example of how difficult it is for the police both to protect society and to be everyone's friend. It is a difficult and often dangerous balance.
Training is also important in improving relations between the police and the public. As I have already said, a single rude or overbearing act by one officer can undo months of good work by the majority. As a result, the Metropolitan Police have therefore completely redesigned the training which is given to their new recruits in order to emphasise the vital importance of working with the public. Improved training in this aspect of policing has also been provided for all existing uniform and CID officers up to and including inspectors.
In January 1989 a professional development programme will be introduced. This is an ambitious long-term training strategy which is designed both to satisfy the public demand for more effective community-centered policing and to support the professional needs of the police. The endorsement of this training strategy at the most senior level in the Metropolitan Police is a demonstration of the force's intention to effect real improvements in the quality of its service. I think that is important and I hope that my noble friend Lord Kimberley will agree.
Although it is true that total crime is down this last quarter, crimes of violence against the person—the really horrible crimes—are up. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the word "fear". Fear has become an important part in the make-up of people. Like truth and love at one end of the spectrum, fear at the other end is a great motivator. It may be that only 2 per cent. of people will become victims of crimes of violence in any one year, but the other 98 per cent. wonder if they will become part of the 2 per cent. and they rehearse the traumas to which those 2 per cent. have been subjected, and which frequently are portrayed by the press.
Thirty per cent. of women are reported as being very worried about being raped; 20 per cent. of the population is reported as being very worried about being mugged or robbed. The fact that the vast majority of these people will not actually experience these crimes is not the point. They feel fear; they fear fear.
Fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to it, may be unreasonable; it may be unnecessary and it may even be irrational, but it is real. It does not

723
respond to argument and it is not represented by statistics. But it is a fact and it is a de-stabiliser and a force for evil. The fear of crime may be more long-lasting and, in some cases, almost worse than the fact of crime. It intervenes in a person's ability to live his or her life in contentment without any crime having in fact been committed. The Government recognise this, and we realise that the presence of the Bobby on the beat is one of the most important purveyors of calm and confidence to the public. We have, therefore, undertaken to see that there are more policemen in London.
By the end of 1989–90, the present manpower programme, which started in 1986, will have produced an additional 1,200 officers. It will also have released—and this is a point raised by my noble friend Lord Kimberley—a further 500 officers through civilianisation, and it will have provided a further 200 civilian staff to support the police. The additional officers on the beat, which will result from our programme of increasing resources, will I hope help a little to alleviate fear. They will not, of course, eliminate it. The number of hours which are spent on the beat by Metropolitan Police officers was 13 per cent. higher at the end of last year than 12 months previously.
The reassurance which the beat police officer can provide helps to create the atmosphere in which police and public can work together as partners.
Much is being done to help and to protect the public and to tackle a difficult task in a sensitive way. But it is up to all of us, from the Home Secretary and the commissioner at the top to the constable and the
724
citizen in the street, to work as partners in order to ensure that the Metropolitan Police can continue to deliver the excellent service to which we have become accustomed; to which the police aspire and which the public demand, and together to combine against crime and its terrible effects.
I am conscious of the fact that I have spoken far longer than is agreeable at this time of night. I regret to say that I did so deliberately because I felt that my noble friend's Question was one of great importance. The fact of crime is a terrible thing and the fact of the fear of crime is also a terrible thing. The ability of the police and the public to work together, of the public to have the confidence of the police and of the police to know that they can serve the public properly is very important. I was anxious to try to explain to your Lordships as much as possible what we feel is being done and what the Metropolitan Police force is trying to do.
No one can ever let up if we are to get on top of crime and if we are to have a police force that is as I believe ours is, both efficient and respected. If my noble friend's Question this evening has contributed to that in a large or a small way it will have served a useful purpose.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.

  AIDS: RESPONSE TO WORKING PARTY REPORT
  AIDS: RESPONSE TO WORKING PARTY REPORT
  LAND REGISTRY: DELAYS
  LAND REGISTRY: DELAYS